Returns and volleys
Apr. 15th, 2003 11:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayWorking 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...
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...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-20 11:26 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-04-20 11:28 am (UTC)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
Date: 2003-04-20 12:25 pm (UTC)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:
Date: 2003-04-20 01:50 pm (UTC)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.