This is a short week, yet it is already so much worse than a normal one.
@smokey That exchange & its infelicitous fallout really bother me. I saw it early but couldn’t reply, then second guessed my desire to ride in as patronizing. Beyond being upset about the shoddy treatment of a good person, I’m embarrassed to share a particular characteristic with the dismissive party.
@smokey The amount of self-editing I engaged in last night is more than I would usually care to admit.
@schuth I didn’t catch things until the end of the day, so all of the damage was already set in concrete…. I’d run across that person before in others’ conversations and felt he was acting like a troll, but I thought I should keep an open mind since he represented one of the few examples here of the other side of the spectrum, and maybe those interactions were aberrations. Yesterday’s exchange, however, removed all doubt (in addition to costing us the good company and valuable insights of our friend Sameer). A very sad day.
I don’t think anyone should let one shared characteristic with a bad actor weigh upon us in any way—but I also understand it is only human for us to do so.
@simonwoods I’m surprised you still have a tongue! (Surely in the process of biting your tongue, you must have bitten it off—or perhaps you had emergency surgery to reattach it!)
@smokey currently giving all of the thanks for the mute feature and looking forward to the addition of a block feature.
@smokey @simonwoods @kitt I seem to be the only one who hasn't seen the original exchange. I didn't know how to find it. On a thread today I got a reply I didn't understand, queried it & got no reply. Then I wondered, was the 1106 person just making a joke I didn't get? Was I being mocked, but I'm too dumb to get it? Is this what Manton referred to as "something about Twitter that seems to encourage snark and being the first to a joke" in Simon's serious thinkers thread today? I'm trying to understand what kind of behavior the community standards actually forbid. They don't seem to spell out the sort of things people actually find upsetting. I think the honeymoon may be over and I'm being a little wary. I'm trying to arm myself with some understanding about the subtle ways some folks behave these days.
@smokey (I want to take a small and parenthetical issue with your phrase “the other side of the spectrum”. If you mean ideologically, I disagree: I’ve encountered quite a few other people here on MB with similar ideological/theological profiles. If you mean the behavior spectrum, however, then yes: “other side” is a very appropriate description... As I see it, that spectrum is defined by the following poles: open, generous, curious, respectful at one end; closed, cynical, smug, haughty at the other. We all fluctuate between these poles on any number of topics and under many different circumstances, of course. But my evaluation of someone’s character — far more than the content of their beliefs and whether I agree with them — is determined by how consistently they inhabit a particular place along that spectrum.)
@Ron I just looked over at that thread you linked to regarding photoblogs, and I’m flummoxed by the 1106 person’s comment, too. I guess you and I will just have to be dumb together. (I’ll let you be in my dream, if I can be in yours...)
As for the “original exchange” that some of us have been talking about today, well... I’m reluctant to point you to it, since I don’t want to encourage any prurient rubbernecking or dogpiles. Also, honestly, it’s not worth it. Suffice to say, there are courteous ways to disagree with someone, and there are snotty, dismissive ways.
As for where this community will draw the line between impolite and toxic, well, I don’t have any easy answers on that.
@Ron I'm pretty sure "1106" was just joking with no ill will intended. I know him, online at least, and he is a very good guy who goes out of his way to help others. I don't think anything was aimed at you.
@rnv Okay extra points for the Dylan reference. Haha. Yeah, I don't need to see that thread, but I was wondering whether it was the 1106 guy who blew off Sameer, but I guess not. Your uncertainty about where the line is drawn is the same as mine. Impolite vs toxic is probably a good line to draw, but the current standard doesn't even mention it. I'm a really good tax accountant because I'm good at reading & understanding clearly stated rules and then following them. Now I'm kinda at sea here.
@bradenslen Okay, that's a relief, thanks for letting me know! I appreciate it. Any chance you can explain the joke too? I've gotta be careful and not get drawn back in here too much. I trust your judgment.
@Ron I saw that comment to you over there earlier, and I, too, am confused as to what it’s supposed to mean. I hope it means “Ron, you’re doing things right!” but I have no idea.
I was tempted to reply there with a comment about tone being lost in text on the Internet and needing to be careful about being clear what we mean (especially with jokes—witness how convoluted my reply to Simon was above, to the point that I almost should have given up on making the joke), but at the same time I wanted to give the gentleman a chance to reply to your comment before seeming to jump on him about it….
Your point about the vagueness of the community guidelines is well-made; there’s not even anything in there about being polite and civil (or, really, encouraging any sorts of norms and behaviors), only statements prohibiting certain more extreme behaviors. Hopefully that will get fixed.
@Ron I really should not speak for somebody else, it's not fair to them. I think it was more about Apple stuff.
@rnv (That’s a fair critique; I have not encountered many on that side of the spectrum ideologically (but I also haven’t sought them out—my criteria for following someone here is “seems to write or share interesting things regularly, and also not regularly/overly political, and makes an effort to interact with those who reply to their posts”), or at least not who have made their place on that side of the ideological spectrum clear to me. Perhaps because of his place on the behavior spectrum, his posts made him a much-more-easily noticed/“prominent” member of that side of the political/ideological spectrum?)
@smokey YES! EXACTLY, that is my concern about the current guidelines. They ban really gross stuff. But was Sameer driven away by anything along those lines? It seemed like maybe not. And from the beginning I've thought that there should be a positive statement of what sort of behavior we want to encourage, like promoting good will among all people, not just the banning of obviously gross stuff.
@JohnPhilpin Well then I can't take it as just a sign of my aging, 'cause I know you're just a youngster.
@Ron Reading what Sameer wrote (the 4th pgh) and remembering the Conversation that caused him to leave another time, I’d say you could make an argument for a pattern of harassment, just not by the same person…a series of individuals replying to him over time with statements that insult his character. But, again, even that falls short of the Micro.blog-defined criteria for harassment:
Harassment: Repeatedly targeting other people with unwanted @-reply messages.
So, as you say, by reading the current guidelines, Sameer wasn’t driven away by anything that’s prohibited. But he was driven away by behaviors we (almost all) agree are harmful, hurtful, and unwanted here :-(
@smokey (Yes, I think you’re right. And of course there are ideologically extremist views that actively shift a person’s behavior toward that smug, closed end of the spectrum. But in general, I strongly believe that most communities of people can embody a wide range of beliefs and world-views and will all be able to coexist with at least minimal friction and conflict, as long as everyone agrees to basic notions of kindness, empathy, and tolerance.)
@Ron @smokey @rnv @JohnPhilpin since there's some confusion, and since I'm one of the ones being dismissed by the dismissive tone, I feel I can link to the conversation. I felt the comment was haughty and condescending, but I would not have called it harassing or threatening at all. It was snide though, and did get me hot under the collar, but as I referenced the Wannsee Conference in a comment earlier in the thread I was afraid perhaps I had invited it. Thinking it over, I don't believe so, but I put my irritation aside and attempted to steer things back into a more productive direction. Maybe @Ron has a point (one I’ve heard you mention before) in that “there should be a positive statement of what sort of behavior we want to encourage, like promoting good will among all people”.
@donmacdonald many thanks for the share - I had seen parts of it already but hadn’t realized that it was the offending stream .... will Read from top to bottom
@Ron well I might have been ‘my own grandpa’ - which would definitely throw a spanner into the statement.
@JohnPhilpin @Ron I am this close to abandoning the social internet in favour of daily time spent in my back garden. I just need to find a way for all of the cool people I know because of the internet to join in!
@donmacdonald @Ron I agree, I wouldn’t call it harrassing or threatening, either. But snide, condescending, haughty — absolutely. And of course that’s the problem, isn’t it. People who, for example, roll their eyes at the idea of “microaggressions” would probably have a hard time seeing where that conversation went off the rails. But for some of us, the thousandth snotty comment or millionth callous remark is the one that breaks us. Snide, haughty, condescending: these are the ways we keep cruelty below the legal limit, and give us the excuse to say, I’m just callin’ it like I see it, I’m just speakin’ my mind. But baked into these attitudes is the idea that not everyone deserves our generosity or our kindness, and if we harm someone by saying a stupid, cruel thing, it’s somehow their fault for being a “snowflake,” instead of our fault for being an asshole.
@simonwoods Quite a dilemna isn't it! I will repeat something I posted once before: This too will pass, attributed to the writings of the medieval Persian Sufi poets, but also used by Abraham Lincoln, who used to ride on his horse to court hearings in my town, right in front of where our house is now standing! "Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away." It even rhymes!!
@simonwoods Okay! Then we're on our way, able to move forward for another day, to earn our pay, each of us able to have our own say. Oy vey!
@Ron I think the joke was that you will be doing it correctly by not using an Apple device and using your own hosted site. A bit of anti-Apple snark and pro indie web, but not aimed at you as a person. It is ambiguous though.
@Ron I think we’re all a little at sea on this, to be honest. It’s genuinely murky, because there’s no clean line between “impolite” and “toxic.” As I said in another comment a few minutes ago, there are lots of ways for “toxic” to fly under the radar and seem, in isolation, to be merely haughty or brusque or “brutally honest.” I have more in common with someone who agrees with me on what civil behavior is, even if we disagree massively on the role of religion in society, or on universal suffrage, or on Pluto’s status as a planet, or whatever. Good people can disagree, as long as they acknowledge each other’s humanity and approach each encounter with mutual respect and empathy. (And hey, any time I can drop a Dylan line for you, I’m going to do it — because your debutante may know what you need, but I know what you want!)
@simonwoods Maybe we can all invest in some garden-ready telepresence rigs? Complete with work gloves and garden spades! Perhaps sun hats too? 😃
@Bruce Hey, I like that. I even think you probably got it right. From now on, you can stand on the side and interpret for the 1106 guy. Thanks!
@rnv Yes!
And as you have now clearly demonstrated TWO TIMES IN A ROW, the best stable datum in any thorny discussion is a brilliant Dylan line!
We sit here stranded, though we're all doin' our best to deny it
@rnv @smokey @ron Part of the reason I left for a while was not being sure of what was appropriate behavior here. And how much of a priority to give to civility.
I do feel that there are topics that deserve an uncivil tone. I got very upset and heated when the atrocities at the border came to light. I shouldn't have jumped down Stephen's throats like I did, but I do stand by the assertion that he (and other tech journalists and pundits) were being like German journalists in the mid-30s. Not a nice comparison, but he had a public platform and atrocities were happening.
I struggle with the boundary between forceful and sometimes harsh arguments about beliefs/actions and personal attacks on character. And if there is a distinction here between private and public figures. I know I have a to the ramparts personality. I'm also exploring my relationships with communities and my ethical red lines.
I chatted with @manton and @macgenie about it at the time and wondered if I should have kept my commentary on my blog and simply pointed to it on Micro.blog?
@rnv @smokey @ron I also got into an intense discussion with @dynamitemoth about criminal justice reform. We eventually arrived in a respectful place, but it took some time to get there. I don't necessarily think I was being unfair, but my tone and language were definitely harsh. And I'm not sure if that is appropriate here. Thoughts?
@Bruce @Smokey @Ron I remember that exchange and, without going back to reread (and relive) it, what I remember most was that it was impassioned. Harsh is one thing, but dismissive and disrespectful is another. I would be shocked if anyone ever accused you, Bruce, of being dismissive or disrespectful. And people can arrive at, as you say, a “respectful place” while still disagreeing on the actual topic at hand. Were you being harsh because you thought Tim was an idiot or a fool? No? Then I think you’re alright.
@Bruce Sure, I remember that discussion. I think it was during that one that I unfollowed you. Just too much Sturm und Drang, as the Germans put it. I was worried you might burst a blood vessel and I didn't want to be around to see it all over you.
One of my favorite quotes from R. Crumb is "Man in his youth is pathetically hopeful and optimistic." The way I've worked it out in my mind is there are two things going on here. (1) The platform was primarily put here to encourage blogging. (2) On top of that, some social media discussions have developed. For me, (1) is ultimately more important than (2). As I have already explained, I plan to shift more towards blogging and away from social media. I can control (1) for myself. (2) is fraught with all kinds of uncertainties, opinions, potential misunderstandings and drama, usually fun, but not always, and at my age, I feel like I need to use my time as wisely as possible.
@rnv @smokey @ron I certainly didn't and don't think Tim is a fool. But I did think he misjudged the situation and perhaps the tactics called for.
The conversation did start me thinking about how change requires both people working within the system and people applying pressure from without. Perhaps inevitably, there will be tensions between the two groups. How do we be allies while remaining true to our messages?
A bit of a non sequitor: I think this was one question posed by BlacKkKlansman. Patrice refuses to date Ron at the end because he won't leave the police department. But their final shot is the two facing the burning cross together.
@Ron I do get pretty impassioned. And I'm exploring that in therapy a lot these days. Of course, that passion informs my art as well and social justice demands it, so I'm not going to drop it. But where to express it is a question for me.
I probably (maybe definitely?) don't have the temperament to convince people in direct discussion. But I do sometimes learn something in the debate. And perhaps there is something in letting people who suffer more than I under unjust systems that a privileged person is outraged by their suffering? Though given the demographics here that is probably not a need.
@Bruce @Smokey @Ron Because all these discussions we’ve been having today started because someone was blithely dismissive and callous to someone else, I keep emphasizing the point that even if people disagree, things will go better (or less badly) if everyone sees everyone else as full humans worthy of respect, even if they hold conflicting opinions and get quite cranky and rough while expressing them. The only opinions that are truly a problem are those that claim that some people are inherently without worth, or that there is some immutable hierarchy in which some humans are intrinsically better than others.
But baked into these attitudes is the idea that not everyone deserves our generosity or our kindness, and if we harm someone by saying a stupid, cruel thing, it’s somehow their fault for being a “snowflake,” instead of our fault for being an asshole.
Very well put!
@Bruce @rnv @smokey @ron As the other participant in that conversation, I should probably chime in here. I never found Bruce's comments to be dismissive or disrespectful towards me. I did find that he tended to make incorrect assumptions about what I believed and what I was saying, but as someone whose opinions don't neatly fit into one of the "standard" ideologies this is a fairly common experience for me.
I, for one, would be less interested in micro.blog if there was too much of an effort to discourage comments that some might see as negative, disrespectful, or dismissive. I realize that these negative (and sometimes agressive) opinions make some people uncomfortable, but I'm more interested in real interactions with real people, and sometimes real people get animated, testy, and perhaps go a bit overboard in their comments. That's life. Better to deal with that, than to create an environment that is always positivie and respectful but unrealistically devoid of passionate disagreements.
@dynamitemoth Thank you for the feedback. And the conversation did give me a lot to think about.
One thing I struggle to do is slow down and give my brain time to really think. What works on the barricades is not always useful on the way there. 🙃
@Bruce it’s lack of passion and caring and saying and doing nothing that got us to where we are ... sorry I am all FOR passion ... never apologize for saying it like it is ... for saying NO - this is NOT ok ... or just sit on the sidelines and get run over.
@JohnPhilpin Oh, I agree passion is vitally important. But I also think generousity in listening and giving time for the spirit/my unconscious to mull on others' words is essential too. Different times and different people call for different language.
Much of this is tied up with my thinking of how best to be a Quaker: to hold both Love and Passion in my heart.
@Bruce absolutely - no listening turns into a uni-directional monologue ... but I am allowed to reject false equivalents, to point out that beliefs are wonderful but not necessarily facts and selectively choosing things to support your argument and ignoring those that don't does not result in a useful dialogue and that I can then either choose to engage with passion or walk away rejecting that which is being professed (using that word loosely).
@JohnPhilpin I think we are in "violent agreement". :) I've just been thinking a lot about my internal dynamics around strongly held beliefs.
@Bruce we are and there's the rub ... We could have got to that in 1 minute in a face to face .... Limitations of the online world 😆
@Ron Hey, just to help clarify. The person that responded to you is an Android user, so I’m pretty sure he was supporting you not having Apple devices, although I know it was really vague. 🙂