Why I say "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas"
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
Says you. There’s a few million people, and growing, in the US who would disagree.
Yep. The same on so many topics, it’s amazing the number of people that are unable to put themselves into other people’s shoes and see what it feels like. I’m the one that gets to decide if something should be offensive to Native Americans, African Americans, Muslims, women, etc. Because I’m the expert.
Sorry, but no one, not even Jesus, says we have to be tolerant of ignorant, racist, hateful , lying crap.
And that would make sense if you were an extreme minority, in a world that every year is bombarded with symbols that you don’t believe in. In addition to having hate crimes directed at you due to your faith. But you aren’t.
The fact that this thread has reached nearly 100 posts and 1k views, leading all but one thread on the first page, is akin to a tragicomedy. That we are so split, so damned woke on one side and conversely so traditionally stubborn is head shakingly ridiculous. Go back in time 20-30 years and imagine this being a divisive, argument worthy topic resulting in insults and petty turd tossing and somehow deserving of deep analytical thought, introspection and philosophical debate.
Eh, my suspicion is that this, as with many things, is driven less by those who are actually offended than by those enlightened sorts who think that people should be offended.
Are you kidding me? When I greet a stranger I’m supposed to figure out what it’s like to be them? Sheesh. Certain politicians don’t want the help to greet them or look them in the eye. I don’t give a rip how much empathy you care to employ, that isn’t reasonable behavior.
Oh, your last sentence, more mindless liberal stereotyping from you. Nobody suggested that behavior.
Some people have disabilities that make it more difficult but most people do this remarkably well starting at 5. But if you struggle with it there are ways to get better.
People tend to reason about others’ mental states by starting with their own and only subsequently adjusting that egocentric default to accommodate differences between themselves and others. Such adjustments tend to be insufficient, rendering final estimates egocentrically biased. When more information about others is available, people tend to rely on existing stereotypes or other expectations to intuit others’ mental states. Systematic errors resulting either from excessive egocentrism or inaccurate expectations can lead to miscommunication, misunderstanding, and social conflict, but these biases also suggest useful strategies for improving mind reading in everyday life.
Good grief. We are talking about Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas here.
The dogma of the far left and far right is more douchebaggery than politics.
This is complete bullshit: "Christmas is a lovely holiday, but it is definitely not a secular one. It is a celebration of Christ, as its very name implies." I grew up an atheist celebrating "Christmas" every year and that celebration was as secular as tying my shoe laces and it never had one iota to do with Jesus Christ or Christianity or religion.
Put that on your plate.
Btw, I haven't read the Bible, are Santa Claus and the reindeer in it?
Perhaps, although the author of the article in the OP does not fit that pattern. She's genuinely one of the offended.
I'm more struck by the fact that this is the first year in which there seems to be a recognition of offense by the left and a call to do something about it. We have this fight every year, and every year, up to and including last year, the fight was something that only existed in the heads of conservatives. It's always been a fake battle, put on by butthurt Christians looking for something to complain about. Now, this year, it suddenly seems to be a real thing.
For my part, while I appreciate the point of view of Julia Ioffe, and I certainly appreciate the attempts by iu_a_att to discuss the importance of simple politeness, I continue to be of the opinion that I will not follow Ioffe down this path, because I think it gives the butthurt Christians the War on Christmas they so desperately desire, and which, up until now, has been entirely imaginary.
Just like the Easter Bunny proves it's complete bullshit to claim Easter is a religious holiday? This will come as quite a surprise to all the Christians attending Christmas services to celebrate the birth of their Savior.
I go by what I think a person's intent is more than what they say. Of course there are things that can be said that are always offensive.
Some responsibility lies with the recipients of the greeting to respond (or don't) in a way that communicates their feelings. A simple "thank you" or "happy holidays" can send the message you're not in to "Merry Christmas." Even "I don't celebrate it, but thanks for the sentiment" seems appropriate to me.
Having said that, using "Merry Christmas" to evangelize to strangers is impolite.
Having said that, using "Merry Christmas" to evangelize to strangers is impolite.
Also fascinating to me is the insistence by some on here that Christmas is a secular holiday devoid of religion. I typically find myself faced with a multitude of people reminding me to celebrate the "true meaning" of the holiday. Heck, the bus driver of my niece's school bus wouldn't open the door when they got to school on the last day before winter holiday break until he was able to scoldingly remind them that the reason they got time off was to celebrate Jesus. Lots of pretzel twisting in the logic this year.
The bottom line here...this entire thread is extraordinarily revealing about the personalities of the posters participating in it!
You guys must be handsome as all hell because these are some of the worst pick up lines I have ever heard. I guess if I direct my eyes somewhere lower than the hips and run my gaze slowly upwardly as I mutter, “happee holly days”, beneath my breath, this could get some traction, but its success probably says more about my execution than the line itself. I’ll give it a try.
Far from warring on Christmas, I happily celebrate it every year. But in this one small way, I try to be mindful that not everyone does what I do. It costs me nothing to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
The vast majority of those who use "Merry Christmas" likely intend nothing but good cheer. (It's what I use when I talk to my family.) But if you know that this makes some people uncomfortable, why would you insist on it? That seems gratuitously impolite and at odds with the ostensible spirit of the greeting.
I'm intrigued by the theme of some posts angrily insisting that this is No Big Deal, and it's bad and wrong to treat it seriously. Well, sure. "Merry Christmas" is hardly the most consequential issue of the day. But it obviously touches a nerve when the dominant culture is asked not to insist on others' submission -- even on this admittedly small point. That's why an innocuous suggestion that people say "Happy Holidays" can produce such strong reactions -- the suggestion isn't regarded as innocuous.
Why is that so fascinating? In a modern, diverse, and pluralistic society like we have in the US, Christmas has many meanings. Your failure to recognize that shows once again that nuance isn't your strong suit. Some of the most iconic Christmas music and observances are obviously secular. Others are obviously religious. Why is this so hard for people to figure out? People are free to feel and observe as they wish. This is why the Federal Courts have held that the lights at the Denver City and County building are not a religious expression. (And I checked two nights ago--"Merry Christmas" is once again prominently displayed on the building. ) This is why thousands of public buildings and spaces are decorated with lights and sounds of the season.
This is also why I think the point of this thread, if there is a serious one, is so silly. Saying "Merry Christmas" should not be offensive to any reasonable person. Yet, believing that brings accusations of lack of empathy and has even led the Fish and Zeke to trash the Golden Rule. ugh!
Here's another non-religious seasonal song for you:
The article I cited made the point that "mind reading" is something most people do pretty continuously by age 5. Our mind reading gets screwed up by "excessive egotism" or "inaccurate expectations". The article reinforces Zeke's point, both are on display in this thread.
As for whether we are just talking about Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas here--we aren't. As for whether such conventions more generally are a big deal or not? Judging by all the hubbub real feelings are involved. My guess is that most of the reasons we give to explain these feelings are rather poor ex post rationalizations divorced from what is really going on. I think the hubbub distills down to this. Some people, (liberals, ethnic minorities and others who have been marginalized in our culture) are requesting that other people (ethnic majorities and those who are typically empowered) change their habitual behavior in ways that are more inclusive. Changing habits is a hassle so everyone gets a bit grumpy about it and feels slightly put upon because most of us mean well after all and why can't that be enough? Change is more enjoyable for younger people and particularly bothersome to older people. The right gets much more worked up about such changes because marginalizing others is a central part of what makes them tick.
If it's not offensive to you, then it isn't offensive. And you think that's the Golden Rule.
No that is not why "Happy Holidays" brings such a strong reaction. I say that often. I also say Merry Christmas. My strong reaction, if there is indeed one, has to do with taking offense at either expression. I think taking offense is strongly petty. There are people who enjoy talking about taking offense. Many have posted in this thread. I think there is a lot more offense talked about than there is offense actually taken. It's worth reiterating that many take pleasure in searching for deeply held allegedly offensive attitudes, and then throwing them back at people under the guise of taking offense. (That silly candy cane flap in Nebraska is another case in point). I said why I refrained from saying "Happy Holidays" to Jewish people I dined with. I also refrained from saying Merry Christmas for obvious reasons. I could have said "have a nice day" but that seemed inconsistent with why we had gotten together any way. And unlike zeke, I am not enough of a world traveler, nor do I have enough diverse "friends," to recognize, let alone understand, the 20 holidays she claims are part of the season.
Why is that so fascinating? In a modern, diverse, and pluralistic society like we have in the US, Christmas has many meanings. Your failure to recognize that shows once again that nuance isn't your strong suit. Some of the most iconic Christmas music and observances are obviously secular. Others are obviously religious. Why is this so hard for people to figure out? People are free to feel and observe as they wish. This is why the Federal Courts have held that the lights at the Denver City and County building are not a religious expression. (And I checked two nights ago--"Merry Christmas" is once again prominently displayed on the building. ) This is why thousands of public buildings and spaces are decorated with lights and sounds of the season.
This is also why I think the point of this thread, if there is a serious one, is so silly. Saying "Merry Christmas" should not be offensive to any reasonable person. Yet, believing that brings accusations of lack of empathy and has even led the Fish and Zeke to trash the Golden Rule. ugh!
Here's another non-religious seasonal song for you:
Like I said - this entire thread is extraordinarily revealing about the personalities of the posters participating in it.
You might find the reason for my fascination in the sentence immediately after the one you quote - that is, if you sincerely interested in finding it.
“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Right. That's a useful starting point.
Next question.
I guess that's the point. Scrooge thought he was being inclusive by saying "Merry Christmas" after he had his three ghost dream. I also think people raise issues about "inclusiveness" when they aren't talking about inclusiveness at all. The author in the OP link is a case in point. I think there are other and much better ways for marginalized people to feel good other than making others feel guilt or remorse. As I said a few times now, the underlying presumption seems to be that saying "Merry Christmas" is an act of exclusion or a deliberately offensive expression. We have come to the point where bad faith is implied. A few posters here have particularly said that as an operating premise when reading posts. We need to get back to implying good faith. We'd be a lot better off.
LOL...your spouse or partner makes a request that you change an annoying habit...you respond angrily that it is outrageous they are making a federal case about such a small thing. Of course they didn't make a federal case about it...this is a stratagem used to avoid making the change that you really ought to be willing to make without all the puerile pouting and whining.
Here's the thing about annoying habits. People should never complain about them--ever. If they are annoyed by a habit their first obligation is to themselves and learn not be annoyed by it. The second obligation is to not deliberately do or say things that annoys others. I learned early that it is much easier and more peaceful to change yourself than to keep trying to change others.
I think those who complain about being annoyed, or offended, don't think much of themselves, and by voicing these issues, they feel empowered. I obviously don't have that problem.
I also do what I can so my spouse and partners don't have that problem either.
Last edited:
It is polite to treat the transparently bad faith argument as if it were a good faith argument. But I think polite fictions must be dispensed with in the face of gross abuses. What do you think?
Very interesting life rules. Given that people are not allowed to tell you what annoys them you must be exceptionally good at mind reading. Or the people around you are routinely annoyed. Or you don't follow those rules.
Did you even read, or understand, what I said? This is how I conduct myself. It's too difficult and disruptive to impose these rules on others. If you did understand, you wouldn't say that in my world people aren't allowed to tell me what annoys them. Mind reading has nothing to do with anything. It's a big job controlling my own mind, I don't mess with other people's. This is also good advice for those who need to lash out at so-callled exclusionary expressions. As you can tell by now, I think your notion that people can't control feelings is BS.
Given your choice of words nobody can disagree. Of course "transparently bad faith" and "gross abuses" are concepts loaded with filters and biases. You really haven't said anything.
We always celebrated Easter in an entirely secular fashion as well. Your logical fallacy is plain to all, including you of course. I'm not saying it's secular for all. I'm disproving that it's not secular for anyone, which is what the author claimed in her piece. She said it's not a secular holiday but to me it is. QED. Her stance is narrow-minded.
This is spot on. Att and a lot of people believe feelings happen to people:
Of course, it's relatively simple to disprove att's notion. I can often change my feelings at will. When I have more troublesome feelings, such as grief after a severe loss, I can still modify my feelings of sadness if not entirely eradicate them. What's true in that case is that the loss happened to me, not the consequent grief. Some people are even happy when another dies. In the case of grief the question is, what do I take as a loss? I can examine my attitude about some loss and move on from there accordingly.
The "Golden Rule," by the way, is inadequate and your life philosophy you're presenting here even shows that. Here's an improved version: Two Rules For Happy Living, which seems to align better to how you say you live.
To me the basic thrust of this thread arises from two butthurts: your "butthurt Christians the War on Christmas" and butthurt anti-Trumpers. As COH shows here, Christmas is broadly about good cheer and wishes. Trump and his ilk have for some time been making a deal about saving Christmas from the haters and creating the fake news that those haters exist in large numbers. (Do they?) Butthurt liberals respond with another attempt at social engineering. Att tries to make it about politeness, as if politeness were a new and unsolved concept.
What strikes me as interesting is that open-minded people here on the one hand try to see each person as a unique individual and on the other hand attempt to social engineer our behavior predicated on making us all the same. The truth is, impolite people behave impolitely, by definition. I've seen someone take offense when another said "Hello!" and I've seen someone give offense by saying "Hello!" There's nothing inherently impolite about saying Merry Christmas.
Edit: Ironically, Rock's preference "Happy Holidays" implies that there's something holy about this time of year, to use the author's logic. What is holy about this time of year for Muslims, Hindus, and so on? Is it impolite to imply this time of year is holy?
It’s amusing that you think you’re explaining to me that some people celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday. As one of those people, I don’t require your explanation.
People undertake a wide, wide variety of actions in the hopes of experiencing feelings of various sorts. They also undertake a wide variety of actions to try and produce feelings of various sorts in others. (See our subject of politeness).
But people can only choose their actions, not the feelings that attend those actions. If you have a headache you can choose to take an Advil but you can't choose whether the Advil is effective or not. My general point is that actions are not outcomes. You can choose how you act in the hope of producing an outcome but you don't choose how actions map into outcomes. The world is, unfortunately, a great deal more uncertain on that count.
I am saying that polite people will tolerate even abusive behavior up to a point. When the abuse is sufficiently bad then even preternaturally polite people properly dispense with politeness. Lot's of judgment, nuance and alliteration involved here.
If your feelings are choices then why do you want to change them? After all, you picked them in the first place didn't you? If you happen to hit your thumb with a hammer I guess, since you control your feelings, you simply decide that your thumb feels great.
More generally, if you are in a position to choose your feelings I am curious to know how you go about choosing them. How do you decide between, for example, feelings of tremendous self-satisfaction versus feelings of awe and wonder about the amazing universe we inhabit? I think I would struggle to make such a decision myself.
I hope she goes to a private school. Otherwise he was totally out of line.Also fascinating to me is the insistence by some on here that Christmas is a secular holiday devoid of religion. I typically find myself faced with a multitude of people reminding me to celebrate the "true meaning" of the holiday. Heck, the bus driver of my niece's school bus wouldn't open the door when they got to school on the last day before winter holiday break until he was able to scoldingly remind them that the reason they got time off was to celebrate Jesus. Lots of pretzel twisting in the logic this year.
The bottom line here...this entire thread is extraordinarily revealing about the personalities of the posters participating in it!
Where exactly did I trash the Golden Rule?Why is that so fascinating? In a modern, diverse, and pluralistic society like we have in the US, Christmas has many meanings. Your failure to recognize that shows once again that nuance isn't your strong suit. Some of the most iconic Christmas music and observances are obviously secular. Others are obviously religious. Why is this so hard for people to figure out? People are free to feel and observe as they wish. This is why the Federal Courts have held that the lights at the Denver City and County building are not a religious expression. (And I checked two nights ago--"Merry Christmas" is once again prominently displayed on the building. ) This is why thousands of public buildings and spaces are decorated with lights and sounds of the season.
This is also why I think the point of this thread, if there is a serious one, is so silly. Saying "Merry Christmas" should not be offensive to any reasonable person. Yet, believing that brings accusations of lack of empathy and has even led the Fish and Zeke to trash the Golden Rule. ugh!
Here's another non-religious seasonal song for you:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza- Latest: BradStevens
