Getting Misrepresented by Others!!! [Let’s get to know each other better]

royI generally wait until the weekend to post something but this frustrated the hell out of me. I know this is just going to be some pointless complaining but at least it’s something relevant to do with the blog that I can share with you. I’m sure this is a situation a lot of bloggers get into from time to time in some form or another so hopefully some of you can relate. I’ve only been blogging for two months now and this has happened to me more times than I would have preferred, which would have been none really but hey, what can you do about it, eh?

Anyway, let’s share some stories about getting misrepresented by others, shall we?

18240_toradora_aisaka_taigaJust recently I wrote a post that received more than five times the amount of views I’d normally get, which I’m sure is still peanuts in comparison to those who have been at this for a while now. ‘Evangelion Made Me An Atheist’ not only got me followers from both the non-religious and religious bloggers but also got me the longest comments I’ve ever received, and I mean essay length buggers! Sure, religion is a hot button, and the more people you get reading your stuff the more likely you’ll get comments from people not interested in reading it but just wanting to have their say. That wasn’t the problem, in fact that was great! I love those kind of discussions and are not at all what I’m referring to here. What I’m referring to are the people doing response posts who not only got more discussion in their comments simply by mentioning the post’s title, but misrepresenting the post and my position completely in the process.

HaruhiismNow I’m not just referencing the Pingbacks, in fact the ‘beneaththetangles’ blog’s Something More was very accommodating and I enjoyed what discussion I received there despite having different views on the subject. However, some blogs I wouldn’t have even known about if it weren’t for my other blogger friends, had referenced my post on their websites, claiming rubbish about my stance on religion that could have been solved simply by reading the post itself!
*Big Breath In*
Anyway, I would like to end this short rant not by naming names but by asking anyone out there both in and out of the blogging community if this has happened to you before in any way?


Has anyone misrepresented your posts or views, tried to put words in your mouth or straw-maned your arguments in an unfair way? If so, share the story in the comment section or make your own post and I’ll link it here. Make sure to tell what happened and also make sure to exaggerate the hell out of it! As my father used to say, ‘Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.’ Hehehe 😉

Watch out for a Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood review coming up this Sunday.

This entry was posted in Anime, Fullmetal Alchemist, Let's get to know each other better, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Getting Misrepresented by Others!!! [Let’s get to know each other better]

  1. The Otaku Judge says:

    I avoid religious references in my blogs. Religion is always a subject that attracts fanatics.

  2. Pingback: Here’s a suggestion: ignore academic knowledge and use controversial definitions | gaikokumaniakku

  3. TWWK says:

    I’m sorry if our blog has in any contributed to the misrepresentation of your words! I know it can be frustrating.

    I can think of one example where someone inferred that I said something that I hadn’t. It led to me writing a response post, which not only got some good conversation going, but helped me develop a relationship with the original writer. It ended up being quite a good thing!

    Otherwise, I’m often misrepresented in general, I think. I sometimes get caught carrying the mantle for “Christian anime fan” among anibloggers. And by Christian, I mean “conservative evangelical,” so opinions about this group, positive and negative, often effect how I’m viewed in the blogosphere and beyond. I’m pretty okay with this, as it gives me an opportunity to try to be open and show people that we’re not all horrible people and that Christianity isn’t a religion of persecution and hate, even if some (or many) try to make it that way.

    Anyway, this was an interesting question and your original post was certainly terrific reading – I’m glad to have stumbled onto your blog!

    • Lazarinth says:

      Lol I made very sure to mention in this post “in fact the ‘beneaththetangles’ blog’s Something More was very accommodating and I enjoyed what discussion I received there despite having different views on the subject.” so don’t worry there were other parties that were involved which your website had nothing to do with.

      Thanks for your contribution, as I said religion is a hot button so I’m sure you’re blog has been the victim of misrepresentation in the past. I only post this one religious thing and got some so you must get it a little more.

  4. On the topic of atheism with respect to gods of which you are unaware, I’d like to look at three cases.

    Case 1: Circa 500 CE, the Slavs worship Pyerun (among other gods), the Germans worship Donar (among other gods) and the Greeks worships Zeus (among other gods).

    All three of these gods are associated with throwing lightning bolts. All three are worshiped in oak groves. All three have very similar attributes, although Zeus is the father-figure of his pantheon and Donar is definitely less prestigious than Wotan.

    If the Slav knows all the attributes of Donar and Zeus, even though he’s never heard their names, is he considered an atheist with respect to these gods?

    Case 2: Emerson started out as a Christian. He discovered Hindu religion and published essays suggesting that all religions are facets of the same underlying truth. By the end of his life, some would call him a Christian heretic or apostate, but he was clearly not a Hindu. Can Emerson at the end of his life be considered a believer in Christianity, Hinduism, or both? (Similarly, Emerson was just one of many philosophers who regarded religion as a “perennial philosophy” independent of the details of doctrine.)

    Case 3: Pope Paul VI wrote an official document saying that many other religions contain some of the truths of Christianity, and that most religions share some common goals of calming the human soul. Does this make Pope Paul VI a believer in Hinduism?

    • Lazarinth says:

      First question: Yes, Donar (Thor) has many different attributes to Zeus and the same with Pyrun Patera. You wouldn’t say people believe in the existence of Dionysus just because he shares a few attributes with Jesus. Of course if they had been Epithets that would be different.

      Second question: It’s wholly possible to believe in both, either or neither. But that doesn’t mean Emerson believed in the existence of all gods, especially if he hasn’t conceived of most of them.

      Third question: If you’re implying that Hinduism doesn’t require belief in the Hindu gods then possibly, questions about religious beliefs don’t always imply the belief in their gods.

      As I said awareness is the contingency for belief, but not for lack of belief. In cases 2 & 3 the people were aware of these gods and therefore it is more than possible that they ‘could’ have believed in their existence. Claiming that some gods share attributes or are based off one another doesn’t mean they are aware of the millions of other gods from dead religions. Claiming similarities doesn’t equal claiming sameness, nor does claiming certain monotheisms are all encompassing of the attributes of many or all gods (I’m not saying that you are) still isn’t the equivalent of believing in those god’s existence simply by associations as they do not encompass all of their attributes. Still there are unknown gods people are unaware and atheistic towards. I’m still waiting to see how this is logically flawed.

      • I don’t think your position contains any contradictions between its assumptions and conclusions. I’m not sure whether your position’s assumptions are compatible with several outside ideas about how people experience gods. However, you don’t have to make your reasoning compatible with those outside ideas.

        As an example of an outside thinker, C. G. Jung might start from assumptions that are incompatible with yours – but you’re not obligated to accept C. G. Jung’s assumptions, and if you were to examine his assumptions, you might conclude that there was no basis for dialogue with him or anyone who shared his axioms.

        As with many debates of religion, the two opposing parties often have profound and yet subtle distinctions in the things that they regard as meaningful.


        Russell and Copleston had quite a bit of trouble even figuring out what the other person meant, because their assumptions were so far apart that they had trouble finding common ground.

      • A follow-up question to the first: Assume you meet a very uneducated modern New Age mystic who claims that he acknowledges the true insights of various religions – Christianity, Judaism, Daoism, Voodoo – but does not attend any church or undertake any regular religious practice. He believes in God, and he believes the God of Judaism is one and the same with the God of Christianity, just with different names.

        Further, because he’s ignorant, he’s never heard of Islam.

        Is this fellow an atheist with respect to Allah?

      • ” I’m still waiting to see how this is logically flawed.”

        You haven’t actually written a logical proof. You’ve used very informal language, and specified only a small fraction of your assumptions. (That’s perfectly fine; that’s how normal people talk and write.)

        When I called your claim illogical, I was assuming that you were going to use academic definitions and that you were claiming to have proven something logically. If you weren’t making that claim, I was unfair when I called your words “illogical.” You can’t fail at academic logic if you’re not trying to do academic logic, and you ARE trying to write informally.

        However, there is an interesting argument to be made that combines tricky logic and tricky communication. This interesting argument might not be the argument you were trying to make, but rather the argument I inferred from incomplete information. After you tell me whether an ignorant Christian is an atheist with respect to Allah, I’ll roll out a first-order logic summary of the argument I thought you were making, and how it can fail at communication even if it succeeds at logic.

      • Lazarinth says:

        Here’s a suggestion; to narrow down your rebuttals. Talk for your own ideas and stop giving examples from other arguments or authority figures. I’m sure if you tell me what ‘your’ issue is with my claim we could find some middle ground.

        Follow up answer; depends if he is using the word ‘Allah’ as the translation for god and simply applying attributes from the gods he is aware of or concieved for himself, or if he is claiming to be aware of the attributes of the Islamic god without being aware of them.

        You can find out what god(s) this mystic believes in simply by asking him what attributes these god(s) have; does this god have a son? Does he reward self sacrifice in battle? Did he create a hell? etc etc…

        So a claim isn’t valid until there is a logical modal for it? I’ve told you everything about my assumption; what about it do you not understand yet? When you reject something as ‘illogical’ you need to show where a claim is illogical, you don’t need a claim’s modal to do this. There are other ways to show a claim is illogical.

        I can show you one way of proving my claim “everyone is already an atheist in regards to almost every other god there is or was, but for the one(s) they believe in now.” wrong. Find me one person who is aware of and believes in the existence of every god that has ever existed, being atheistic to none. If you think this is impossible, there’s a very good reason why and I’m sure you can figure it out.

  5. alexamasan says:

    Being misrepresented is something that happens way too often I’m afraid. If you hold an opinion, many will simply group you into a category and make assumptions about you without trying to understand where you’re coming from. My blog is still new and I haven’t had this happen there yet, but on the internet in general and in life, being misrepresented is an inevitability. Most people just aren’t willing to spend the time and energy to study a position that says their own position is wrong. Many Christians are ignorant of common philosophical arguments and scientific evidences that argues against their case while many Atheists are ignorant of the content, history, and transmission of the Bible.

    The best thing I think to do in response is to simply take it in stride and not take the attacks personally. Often times the person who is misrepresenting you isn’t arguing against you specifically (obviously since they don’t even understand what your position is), but they are arguing against the group they have categorized you in. You can correct them if you desire, but I personally think it’s important to not let it get to you and try not to let any kind of anger be reflected in the response. Of course since I hate being misrepresented myself, I do try to really understand where someone is coming from, but even still I can make false assumptions about people. We are all human and the reality, we may do it ourselves sometimes without even realizing it, though hopefully we can all at least try to understand each other.

  6. Pingback: Did Pollock refute Godel? I doubt it… | gaikokumaniakku

  7. I’ll try to be a bit more careful about what positions I attribute to my interlocutors!

    There will probably be a bit of a tussle over some definitions, particularly the difference between a non-Supreme god (like Mictlancutli or Donar) and a Supreme God (like Allah, Brahman, etc.).

    Incidentally, if I implied that you were a maltheist, that was just incorrect writing on my part. I was trying to say that I don’t care whether people think I’m a maltheist or not.

    Anyway, I should review Pollock – I’ll try to reply promptly, but this will take a while, because I’ll need to check Pollock’s symbolic logic rather closely.

  8. Jazy says:

    Not on this blog, but often people will just read the first few sentences of things I post elsewhere and derive an entire argument just from that. The best part is half of the time they’re saying things I completely agree with because if they would have read the rest of it they’d know we’re on the same page. Some people. Bleh.

    Religion is a hot button topic, that’s for sure. But you had an interesting title that drew people in — remember, any publicity can be good publicity (even if it kind of sucks to deal with.) Still, you’re gonna get people like that from time to time no matter the subject. But I wish you the best in that regard! Looking forward to the Brotherhood review!

    • Lazarinth says:

      I’ve been meaning to get around to replying to your other comment on my least favorite things post for a while now, but I’m following your blog now so I’ll get your posts as well :D.

      • Jazy says:

        Aww, thanks! And its okay if you don’t respond, obviously 😛 My personal bias towards Yu Yu Hakusho is overwhelming, but I can admit the story flaw towards the end. That’s why I write copious amounts of fanfiction xD

        I hope my blog isn’t too boring~

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s