Returns and volleys
Working on my taxes, taking the morning off of work. I should get small refunds on both federal and state returns. Meanwhile, ![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
patgreene has taken the kids to the beach so I can have peace to get the taxes done.
Periodically, I've been trading posts yesterday and today with a few folks on a local mailing list known for its combativeness (sfbay-poly). Accused of whining, of talking too much, of being manipulative... if folks there are really that incensed by my communication style, I wish they'd just killfile me and go on.
When commenting in public posts on topics that are emotionally or ethically sensitive, I prefer to be oblique or indirect, even unclear. I've learned that if I speak openly and clearly on some issue on a mailing list or newsgroup, I lose control of my words -- they may be used by others against third parties, or even brought up against myself at some future date. If I instead use metaphor, obscure anecdotes or indirect counter-examples, I may be misunderstood... but at least I still have a line of defense, in that I can later dispute whatever interpretation someone else tries to apply to my ramblings.
And there's a certain puzzle-solving fun, too... watching to see who, if anyone, on a given group, will actually figure out what I'm trying to say (instead of rushing to knee-jerk reactions or simple interpretations). I suppose that's a bit arrogant, but otherwise I'm easily bored...
patgreene has taken the kids to the beach so I can have peace to get the taxes done. Periodically, I've been trading posts yesterday and today with a few folks on a local mailing list known for its combativeness (sfbay-poly). Accused of whining, of talking too much, of being manipulative... if folks there are really that incensed by my communication style, I wish they'd just killfile me and go on.
When commenting in public posts on topics that are emotionally or ethically sensitive, I prefer to be oblique or indirect, even unclear. I've learned that if I speak openly and clearly on some issue on a mailing list or newsgroup, I lose control of my words -- they may be used by others against third parties, or even brought up against myself at some future date. If I instead use metaphor, obscure anecdotes or indirect counter-examples, I may be misunderstood... but at least I still have a line of defense, in that I can later dispute whatever interpretation someone else tries to apply to my ramblings.
And there's a certain puzzle-solving fun, too... watching to see who, if anyone, on a given group, will actually figure out what I'm trying to say (instead of rushing to knee-jerk reactions or simple interpretations). I suppose that's a bit arrogant, but otherwise I'm easily bored...
no subject
Translation (from the voices inside serene's head and nowhere else, necessarily): I am a weasel whose aim in "communicating" is to amuse myself rather than actually participating in conversation, and who doesn't have the courage to stand by anything he says.
You lose "control" of your words the second they leave your fingers and end up in public. What you're currently losing is the respect of people whose respect I guess I thought you had some interest in, but now think you might just be toying with for some unfathomable reason.
no subject
I must have similiar voices...
Sorry Brian, I must also say I agree with this point. Stand up for what you believe in. It is much better than losing the respect of your peers.
no subject
no subject
no subject
How is this different from trolling?
no subject
no subject
I don't think the first or the last bits are necessarily required. My impression is that you seem to be stirring up shit merely for the purpose of doing so, posting things that you are well aware are inflammatory. Sarcasm does not translate well to text communications unless perhaps it's with someone who knows you very well; I think expecting a whole mailing list, usenet group, or journal audience to know when you're being sarcastic with nothing to go on other than the words you write is asking a little much.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Re:
Maybe the problem wasn't in the telling, but in the doing. Is it okay to manipulate people as long as you don't get caught?
no subject
If I point out the flaws in a viewpoint by temporarily pretending to be a poorly-informed and/or over-enthusiastic supporter of that viewpoint (parodying), or re-examining something I believe by publicly questioning other people that are expressing similar beliefs (devil's advocate), do you see those as necessarily manipulative? If I say something humorous to an audience without prior warning, am I nonconsensually playing games, or just have a sense of humor?
I realize that you and the other side are also friends -- so if that puts you in a difficult position, please treat the above as rhetorical questions and don't feel obliged to respond, either way.
Re:
I do think of playing devil's advocate as manipulative, yes. I just had this conversation with a sweetie of mine who likes to take devil's advocate positions in political arguments.
The thing is, for me, my social and political beliefs don't tend to be emotion-neutral. I can't hold an emotionless, just-kicking-the-possibilities-around discussion of the war, say, or the question of psychotherapists sleeping with their patients, or IQ testing. That doesn't mean that I can't advance a logical defense of my position - I can, but the discussion comes at an emotional price.
I'm perfectly willing to pay that emotional price if everyone else in the discussion is acting in good faith. If I find out that someone else in the discussion was not putting forth their true opinions, but was just trying to elicit reaction, I feel jerked around. That person's gotten me all emotionally worked up, and for what?
I'm primarily bothered by what you said in the comment I originally replied to: "when I get flamed, it's about my communication style, or about the character I'm currently playing online, but not a threat to *me* as a person."
As someone who does put myself as a person forward in communication, I don't care to interact with a "character" - I feel as though all the emotional risk is on my side, and none on the other person's side. To the extent that the other person has hidden the the nature of their approach, I feel manipulated.
no subject
no subject
Personally, if I find out that someone is purposefully attempting to manipulate me, as you have all but admitted to doing, I will make certain that person stops doing so, by revoking their access to me and my life..
no subject
no subject
no subject
Well, yeah, that's manipulative, and most people don't enjoy being nonconsensually manipulated.
no subject
no subject
It is considered polite in most venues I frequent to announce the rhetorical style one is employing, to distinguish it from "conversation as oneself".
no subject
Coupled with your description of your communication (or lack of it) style, I don't know that I'd find that accusation to be wildly off-base, unfortunately.
When commenting in public posts on topics that are emotionally or ethically sensitive, I prefer to be oblique or indirect, even unclear.
I would find this distinctly unhelpful, more like pouring gasoline on a fire. I'm not sure I understand what exactly you hope to gain by not saying what you mean, other than being able to claim "that's not what I really meant" when you get called on it? I think that it should be up to you to say what it is you really mean rather than playing non-consensual games with people trying to make them figure out the real meaning of your words.
[I'm not trying to attack you, I'm really not; I honestly am curious about what you think this type of communication is really gaining you.]
no subject
You'd know better than nearly anyone, yourself... was that your previous impression?
I think that it should be up to you to say what it is you really mean rather than playing non-consensual games with people trying to make them figure out the real meaning of your words.
I'm perfectly willing to feign cluelessness or ignorance, for example, to draw out an explanation that would otherwise be glossed-over (and missed by actual group newcomers/participants who were afraid to ask themselves). Or play devil's advocate, even regarding things I personally agree with, if some assumption is going otherwise-unchallenged. Viz. my entries about
Doing these things comes at some personal cost to myself, but I think that it's sometimes necessary. I'm willing to make myself look silly or stupid or clueless if it causes something needful to be discussed, or an ignored viewpoint to be heard. That can be construed as a service to a given list or newsgroup, albeit a self-impugning one.
no subject
I don't think I'd construe it as a service if it's done in the manner you describe. I believe there are more productive ways to bring those discussions around than feigning cluelessness. You might also think for a moment about how this kind of thing might tie in to your previous posts about feeling isolated.
no subject
Not always... sometimes one gets "everyone knows *that* (some assumption), why are you asking?" and dismissed. Unless one pretends to have never heard of (some assumption)... which explanation in turn allows one to innocently point out the glaring holes in (some assumption)...
no subject
I still don't at all find that to be a good and useful method of communicating. I'm not sure that I'd even call that communicating at all; I'd call that playing games, pure and simple. I suspect you'll find that most people don't at all appreciate that kind of thing.
no subject
no subject
no subject