Returns and volleys

[jay]

Working on my taxes, taking the morning off of work. I should get small refunds on both federal and state returns. Meanwhile, 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...

Comments

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[greeklady.livejournal.com]

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.


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.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

It isn't a matter of bloody-mindedly standing for what I believe in -- there's adequate documentation of that in a Google search of alt.poly. This is more of an issue of being willing to throw out attitudes or beliefs that I don't necessarily believe in, for the sake of provoking discussion in some way. And perhaps of indirect vs. direct communications...

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

This is all fine and well if people know you're doing that. If they don't, it could lead people to have an impression of you that isn't true. I'm not sure how a good discussion is worth that.

[geekchick]

This is more of an issue of being willing to throw out attitudes or beliefs that I don't necessarily believe in, for the sake of provoking discussion in some way.

How is this different from trolling?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I'm not anonymously arriving, inciting a stir and leaving... these are forums where I've been for years and am reasonably recognized... and I've always stayed around and borne the consequences.

[geekchick]

I'm not anonymously arriving, inciting a stir and leaving...

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.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

So, what would you suggest?

[geekchick]

Er. That's not exactly what my voices are saying, but it's the same general idea. I guess this is a "me too".

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

So, my girlfriend says I'm a weasel? Hmmm....

[geekchick]

No, I didn't mean to say you were a weasel. See my previous attempt at explanation below, but I might characterize your self-described communication style as a bit weaselly, especially this bit: "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".

[geekchick]

This isn't about you as a person, it's about your communication style. Two different things.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Which is exactly why my communication style is the way that it is, so that 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. You hit the proverbial nail...

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I appreciate that you're being upfront here about what you do, and why. Do you make similar posts to your various newsgroups and mailing lists?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately... that was one of the reasons for a recent flame-session. I baldly stated what I was/had been doing... others took umbrage. If I'd just kept quiet and said nothing,other participants might have attributed strangely-inconsistent views to me, but at least no one would have complained that they were being thusly manipulated.

Re:

[rivka.livejournal.com]

*nod* It doesn't surprise me that it got a negative reaction.

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?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I didn't originally assume that I am being/was being manipulative, that's an accusation that others have subsequently flung back at me... (acknowledged below)

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:

[rivka.livejournal.com]

*blink* I don't actually know who "the other side" is, if this is something that happened on sfbay-poly. I'm not subscribed to that list. I'm just going on what you've said here.

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.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

What can I say? This is a common approach among scientists (ever hear one speak publicly on a finding without lots of qualifications, so-called "weasel-words"?), politicians, and anyone else in an adversarial public speech arena...

[the-ogre.livejournal.com]

And in what way is a scientist who is presenting a paper or giving a lecture in any way related to the current conversation on sfbay-poly, or the exact same tone that you've taken in the majority of your journal entries to date?

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..

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

What the h--- are you talking about? What tone "in the majority of your journal entries"? Really? Since October 2001? Where's *your* data?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I've stood by many discussions in the past, to the point of being accused of obtuseness. But at the same time, I'd rather communicate indirectly (since I don't fancy online flamewars for their own sake) and I'm willing to play clueless-newbie or devil's advocate if I think a given discussion could benefit from my interjection in some way. Granted, that's manipulative...

[trinker.livejournal.com]

"Granted, that's manipulative..."

Well, yeah, that's manipulative, and most people don't enjoy being nonconsensually manipulated.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Actually, on further, non-browbeaten thought, I'm not sure I'd grant anymore that those are manipulative behaviors -- or at least no more than other forms or rhetoric or debate.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

As I've said in other venues re: Devil's Advocacy, the position was originally one where all involved knew that the priest in question was acting as Devil's Advocate.

It is considered polite in most venues I frequent to announce the rhetorical style one is employing, to distinguish it from "conversation as oneself".