Moments of Permanence - really hoping this doesn't get messy either

From: rainbow Date: June 29th, 2009 03:44 am (UTC) (Link)

Neither of these may apply, but maybe they do: tone, facial expression, and gestures are missing in text communication. This makes for more misunderstandings. And, imo, more misunderstandings are likely when folks are on edge already -- and if it's fandom ppl, well, most of fandom is on edge lately.

(Reply) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 04:27 am (UTC) (Link)

I was going to say that the person involved in the non-dreamwidth-based debate isn't in fandom, and then I remembered that this individual is TOUCHY AS ALL HELL at the best of times, so: good point.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: rainbow Date: June 29th, 2009 04:31 am (UTC) (Link)

Online talking is hard. I only *can* "talk" with ppl this way, and I can't always get what I mean across well since I ahve so much trouble with words adn am so literal so much, and it frustrates me no end sometimes that I can't get what is in my head to the other person so they know what I mean, you know?

(Reply) (Parent)

From: trouble Date: June 29th, 2009 06:02 am (UTC) (Link)

Is this something you want feedback on, or are you just looking for commiserations?

I can do either. *hug*

(Reply) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 06:04 am (UTC) (Link)

Feedback. If I post saying "this is a problem, and clearly it's something I'm doing wrong", I'm seeking feedback. :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: trouble Date: June 29th, 2009 06:07 am (UTC) (Link)

If I feedback, will I check back on some other post and see you complaining about what I had to say? This is really very relevant to where I think you're going wrong, for what it's worth.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: sami Date: June 29th, 2009 06:14 am (UTC) (Link)

No.

If it's in reference to this - the trouble is, it's set off by that recent post, but it's been a general pattern in a bunch of things lately, some of which don't, in fact, involve online community-stuff at all. (But which I cannot detail here, just in case. I'll get on gtalk to tell you about it.)

(Reply) (Parent)

From: susanreads Date: June 29th, 2009 11:05 am (UTC) Assorted observations (Link)

The first and last parts of a post have the biggest weighting, I think (First Impressions and the Take-away Message). If they both point in the same direction, anything in between is less likely to be heard. ... I never think of this when I'm composing an argument myself, of course ...

What rainbow says above makes a lot of sense.

If someone objects to part of your post and you repeat or expand it (I don't like so-and-so because ...), this rarely leads to a better place. Some people seem to get away with it, but I suspect that's because people either don't dare contradict them, or don't think they're worth engaging with.

You know when people are arguing with you, that usually means they haven't written you off, right?

(Reply) (Thread)

From: elspethdixon Date: June 30th, 2009 05:11 pm (UTC) Re: Assorted observations (Link)

The first and last parts of a post have the biggest weighting, I think (First Impressions and the Take-away Message). If they both point in the same direction, anything in between is less likely to be heard. ...

*nods* This. At least 50% of the arguments I've gotten into with seanchai have been because she responds to something I'm angry/passionate about with "yes, but" and then launch into a long explanation of some more subtle element and I literally do not hear the "yes" part at the beginning because the rest of the statement outweighs it so heavily. Then we'll argue for twenty minutes because I can't believe she's disagreeing with me about something so obvious and she's frustrated that I'm not listening (because I can't process her additional point because I'm still stuck trying to make the first point I mistakenly think she's arguing with me about).

This mostly happens IRL rather than online, though, because with text, I can see the entire statement right there in black and white.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: susanreads Date: June 30th, 2009 09:10 pm (UTC) Re: Assorted observations (Link)

That's interesting; I've certainly seen that "Why are you arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you?" happening on-line. People have different listening/reading comprehension styles. I'm a bit too literal about terminology sometimes!

(Reply) (Parent)

From: willow Date: June 29th, 2009 01:32 pm (UTC) (Link)

Posted. But I want to add this isn't the first time you've made the same kind of argument. We got off on the wrong foot because you did it back then too.

Looking as if you were paying lip service for cookies, while underminding the 'cookiework' with the rest of your words.

(Reply)

From: sqbr Date: June 29th, 2009 01:37 pm (UTC) Warning: contains fairly blunt constructive criticism (Link)

Welll...I can tell you how your approach differs from mine, but mine is, I think, too flawed in the opposite direction(*) and of course suited to my communication style. This may or may not be useful!

I think you're not TOO bad at expressing yourself: you're ambiguous or poorly expressed every now and then, but no more than most people.

But the two things which I find help me discuss polarised touchy subject and I don't think you always do are:
(1) Start from the assumption that people are going to assume the worst interpretation of what I've said and this is reasonable. So I have to PROVE I'm not a sneaky concern troll etc.
(2) If someone criticises me, start from the assumption that they're right, or that if they misinterpreted me this is 100% my fault. This goes double if I'm talking about a subject where I have privilege and the person criticising me doesn't. Also, coming across as racist etc by accident is just as hurtful as doing so on purpose, and thus still deserves an apology.

Obviously there are exceptions ie obvious trolls etc.

2 is I think the real issue. I mean you are open to criticism, but you need to be convinced, and if you've inadvertently said something offensive then the person you've offended may not have the patience to explain if it's in the face of you clearly assuming that the problem is with their reading comprehension.

To give the specific example of the post about feminism:
------
1: as you know (and said), WOC are understandably touchy about criticism from white feminists about doing anti-sexism "wrong". So if you're going to say anything remotely critical of anything associated with anti-sexist WOC (such as womanism) you have to PROVE you're not being racist. Saying "I have criticisms of womanism but I'm not going to going into them here" doesn't do this, so the default assumption is that you're being racist. Which seems kind of mean until you remember how often well meaning "allies" of any type show their/our asses.

And now that any WOC reading the post is already in a "This is racist" mindset, the moral "Don't criticise feminists the wrong way" sounds like it's aimed at WOC (who do after all criticise feminists a lot, as you said yourself...).

So: if it was me, I would have said "I'm not comfortable calling myself a womanist for various reasons I won't go into here" rather than saying it's bad(**) and then explicitly said (assuming this was what you meant) "My problem is NOT with WOC, trans people etc making valid criticisms of feminism for it's flaws as a movement but still supporting anti-sexism in general. My problem is with the OTHER sort of people who criticise feminism, the ones who seem not to approve of anti-sexism on principle, or criticise feminism purely on the basis of untrue and shallow stereotypes like having no sense of humour or hairy legs."

2: I would have started a reply to Willow with "I didn't mean to come across as the bad sort of feminist or imply that I get to decide what identity people should choose for themselves, but I obviously did and I apologise. I seem to have expressed myself badly but what I was trying to say was.."

Similarly, softestbullet was the second person to take your post the wrong way, so the response should even more have been "I'm really sorry it came across that way, I agree they're totally different" not "But that's not what I SAID".

And then having realised I'd screwed up step (1) I'd edit the post, if only to say "Disclaimer: I seem to have expressed myself really badly in this post, I'm still working on how to fix it. See the comments."
----
Myself I'm not always very good at (1) but am pretty good at (2) (Although see (*)) and as a result while I do get criticised for (seemingly, and sometimes actually) saying bad stuff it rarely gets very heated.

So: Thats what I would do. This may not suit you. I hope this comment was at least kind of helpful anyway.

(*) "Assume people criticising you are right" gets me into trouble when I end up agreeing with something I really DON'T agree with on autopilot while I try and get my actual thoughts straight, and then have to backtrack. Especially when two or more people criticise me from opposite directions at the same time and I end up tied in wishy washy knots.
(**)Unless you were willing to go into your reasons. Which I am actually curious about, but this is not the place for it :)

(Reply) (Thread)

From: sqbr Date: June 29th, 2009 01:56 pm (UTC) I miss comment editing (Link)

Note: I only talked about the communication issues with your post since that was the topic of this post. After reading it and people's criticisms so deeply in order to write that comment I also have issues with some of the content but Willow captured them and more in her reply.

Having people annoyed at you is never fun (especially when you have a sneaking suspicion it's your own fault!), good luck working through it all.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: lady_ganesh Date: June 29th, 2009 11:44 pm (UTC) (Link)

I'm going to stick to the feminist post. Willow brought up some good points but I also want to add that you are very good at sounding authoritative even when you don't necessarily know what you're talking about, which makes people react even more strongly.

I do this all the time. It's easy to do! But it's important to know the full background-- or at least some of the background-- of something before criticizing it. Like "womanist."

(Reply)