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

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

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.

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 akienm and dawnd's poly-shy discussion group last June as an example.

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.

[geekchick]

That can be construed as a service to a given list or newsgroup, albeit a self-impugning one.

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.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

more productive ways to bring those discussions around than feigning cluelessness

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)...

[geekchick]

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)...

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.