I can’t Exemplary on WordPress, so consider this comment of mine as a pretty blue label for your amazing and incredibly thoughtful words. Thank you for taking the time to write this, and thank you...
I can’t Exemplary on WordPress, so consider this comment of mine as a pretty blue label for your amazing and incredibly thoughtful words. Thank you for taking the time to write this, and thank you for trusting us with its contents, lou. As someone who is verbose to a fault, I appreciate your insights and perspective.
Like you identified, I think there’s a protective, defensive quality to comment length online because bad faith efforts have eroded the bedrock around shorter, more logical comments. Comments like that are now unfortunately likely to be seen as representing some awful things that many genuinely don’t. In an ideal world we would simply see those comments as their own communication style, but in the forever war of the internet they get misinterpreted as sniper fire. That’s not fair to people like you.
I can no longer wear in public the glasses that allowed me to see.
This sentence broke me. I’m so sorry.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always admired your ability to concisely convey your convictions. It’s a skill I don’t have, and it’s one that I think you are particularly good at. I can’t speak for all of Tildes, but I can say that you should never have to feel uncomfortable in your “glasses” around me. I like you and your communication style whether you’re writing long form stuff like this or the much shorter but no less valuable insights I’m so accustomed to from you.
I think the core problem is that almost all arguments online happen in text, which makes it much easier to go through them point by point. Since arguing that way is easier than reading something...
I think the core problem is that almost all arguments online happen in text, which makes it much easier to go through them point by point. Since arguing that way is easier than reading something (maybe multiple times), everyone, including me, tends to fall into addressing points larger than the overal argument.
It's when you start quoting and responding to stuff by section where it can get kinda dangerous, because you become so clinical in your argument that the original point can get lost.
I'm definitely guilty of this too and I will try to be better in the future.
Thank you, @lou for sharing your perspective. You seem to be a kind soul and I hope that the responses here encourage you to be yourself more. Writing is a wonderful way of self-expression and you should be able to do it how you want.
I've been thinking about the ways in which our writing conveys emotion, and it is apparent to me that the emotion other's perceive in my writing is often not the one I actually hold. As you...
I've been thinking about the ways in which our writing conveys emotion, and it is apparent to me that the emotion other's perceive in my writing is often not the one I actually hold. As you mention, quoting and responding to someone point by point leads to bad results. I believe that is because it signifies emotional intensity, as if the one deconstructing the "opposing" argument was doing so in a state of frenzy. The perception is that the critic was taken by rage. That is perceived as even more emotional when responses are quick and short, as if the commenter was so profoundly distressed, they could not wait to refute. It is clear to me that this interpretation is often correct, but not always. Some people write quickly because they think quickly (example: ADHD), and not because they're angry.
There are many signifiers of emotion that are interesting to think about.
Problem is, in text, I can make one, ten, or a hundred points before you can get a word in edgewise. Therefore, addressing multiple individual smaller points allows you to ensure that important...
It's when you start quoting and responding to stuff by section where it can get kinda dangerous, because you become so clinical in your argument that the original point can get lost.
Problem is, in text, I can make one, ten, or a hundred points before you can get a word in edgewise. Therefore, addressing multiple individual smaller points allows you to ensure that important things don't get lost in a deluge of text while ensuring that the readers know what you're typing about for each section.
In the real world, if we were arguing something and the other person brought up seven different things without giving you a chance to respond, you'd be rightly frustrated. Online, I can just "talk over" you with my points and then when you try to counter them say "You're just dissecting my argument line by line!"
I think a good strategy in that situation is to start a reply by acknowledging the big picture of what the person was asserting, address some number of points explicitly, and conclude by...
I think a good strategy in that situation is to start a reply by acknowledging the big picture of what the person was asserting, address some number of points explicitly, and conclude by addressing how those points would change the overall conclusion. That let's you address specifics while acknowledging someone's main argument and not just nit picking individual points.
I would also say, it would help if people didn't post a dozen points so at once as well.
I don't disagree, but ironically enough, if our comments were briefer, this wouldn't be a problem wouldn't it? I'm not saying that everyone does this, but I've noticed this sort of pattern within...
I don't disagree, but ironically enough, if our comments were briefer, this wouldn't be a problem wouldn't it?
I'm not saying that everyone does this, but I've noticed this sort of pattern within my own comments, nor am I saying that this is always a bad approach. Quoting can be a useful tool. I probably just overuse it.
This is only tangentially related to both the article and your post, but I think a lot of issues mentioned in both are caused (or at least exacerbated) by internet discourse at large following the...
This is only tangentially related to both the article and your post, but I think a lot of issues mentioned in both are caused (or at least exacerbated) by internet discourse at large following the exact opposite rules to ones we have here - instead of looking for a charitable interpretation, a large number of people (I feel like it might even be the majority, but might be my personal bias) is trying to find the most uncharitable interpretation and either argue with or make a fool of others.
I'm guilty of this too - very often my first instinct is to think "well look here at this moron/asshole!", but thanks to Tildes, more often than not I try to correct myself and look for ways this person could be right instead of trying to find ways in which they are wrong. Could they mean something else than what I understood it as at first glance? Maybe it's just their command of the language that's an issue rather than the message itself? Maybe they just have a bad day? Sure, telling someone off or making a fool out of them publicly can feel great (for some damn reason), but it's amazing how one's reaction can change if you don't give in to that first impulse and instead give it a bit more thought...
I'm sadly the opposite of concise most of the time so apologies for droning, but I wish so much there were more places online when people actively try to agree or at least actually talk to each other instead of hurling insults, nitpicking and degrading other posters. I love it here because I feel this is what is happening on Tildes - even though I don't post much, I'm continuously amazed at how civil and... I don't know, just... nice a conversation online can be, even when people disagree with each other.
I do hope there is a way to make this style of posting and discussion a trend - the internet needs more nice forums and fewer toxic garbage dumps...
Ah, this is what I have been looking for, informal logic. That is what I have been wanting to read and learn more about. Do you have any favorite books on informal logic? I understand this notion...
I bought my first book of informal logic 25 years ago.
Ah, this is what I have been looking for, informal logic. That is what I have been wanting to read and learn more about. Do you have any favorite books on informal logic?
If a man named George says “I enjoy strawberry ice cream the most”, a reasonable person would take it as a harmless preference. In online discussions, however, the same phrase might lead to an implication that butter pecan ice cream is inherently immoral.
I understand this notion and it is frustrating. I feel like we live in a time where society interacts with each other in a state of heightened anxiety, especially in online discussion forums. I wish we could take things plainly at "face value" instead of conjuring every single possible other intention behind someone's post. Sometimes I wish we could "assume good faith" out of others, and even in the worst case scenario when we really feel someone is being a "bad actor," we could just ask "what do you mean?" and see how they clarify their thoughts. I wish people didn't feel like they have to write a comment with a list of disclaimers the length of a medication side effect pamphlet in order to be assumed to be in good faith. I would rather just try to assume good faith.
I don't know why, but this reminded me of during COVID times, when governments were encouraging people to get the free COVID vaccinations. There was a lot of people online talking about how it's dangerous and to not get it for health reasons, using arguments like "why would the government be offering to inject you with something for free?" and such. I would be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit scared about getting a COVID vaccination after seeing so many posts like this online and some friends of friends refusing to get it. Fear mongering is very effective on humans, especially as an anxious person. I decided to ask myself "what if the worst case was true and the vaccine I get is dangerous?" And I decided that in that case, at least I chose to trust in others and do something that I thought would help humanity. I chose to assume good faith.
I think in many situations, especially in online discourse, it is hard to assume good faith. Assuming good faith involves some degree of trust and vulnerability, especially due to the underlying fear of a "bad actor" taking advantage of people. But I do not believe that assuming good faith means being naive. We can always ask clarifying questions to deduce whether somebody is truly posting in good faith, and is being misunderstood, over someone who is attempting to be malicious.
I lost the book, but I am almost certain I studied an old first edition of Informal Logic by Douglas Walton. Looking it up now, it was substantially extended. For what it's worth, you can't really...
I lost the book, but I am almost certain I studied an old first edition of Informal Logic by Douglas Walton. Looking it up now, it was substantially extended.
For what it's worth, you can't really teach logic fundamentals without informal logic. So any introduction should suffice.
I think in many situations, especially in online discourse, it is hard to assume good faith.
That is indeed complicated. I intend to further elaborate on the limitations of compassionate interpretation to address those issues.
One thing I would add to the above point, and as a general comment on the article overall, is that length doesn't indicate quality. A post, article, or comment can be high quality and of any...
In light of the advantages of longer texts, it is crucial to highlight that writing defensibly is neither practical nor enjoyable. Furthermore, an excess of elaboration could alienate potential readers. One must be vigilant to avoid turning the metric into a goal, taking the forest for the trees. Principles are tools to guide and improve our behavior.
One thing I would add to the above point, and as a general comment on the article overall, is that length doesn't indicate quality. A post, article, or comment can be high quality and of any length. However, it feels that many folks who write long-form do so without putting in the ever increasing editorial effort to make it of high quality. E.g., deduplication, consolidating sections, harmonizing paragraphs for flow, vetting accuracy, checking tone, etc.
Barring situations where obvious and needed points are left out, I would prefer people to strive for shorter articles/posts/comments of a higher quality, even if it means adding a quick caveat about things left unaddressed. Sometimes a long comment just feels like a steamroller of text, and gets in the way of communicating ideas. Not every thought needs full elaboration.
Agreed. Sometimes I start reading a long post or comment, and I keep reading... and reading... and reading... until I finally wonder "What is your point?" It's usually buried under mountains of...
However, it feels that many folks who write long-form do so without putting in the ever increasing editorial effort to make it of high quality. [...] Sometimes a long comment just feels like a steamroller of text, and gets in the way of communicating ideas. Not every thought needs full elaboration.
Agreed. Sometimes I start reading a long post or comment, and I keep reading... and reading... and reading... until I finally wonder "What is your point?" It's usually buried under mountains of fluffy text and I have to expend effort piecing it together. And a few times after reading something long, I look through the whole text multiple times, confused and wondering "Was there even a point at all..? What did I just read?" (Luckily this has been a rare occurrence, though surprising to experience nonetheless.)
I recently read On Writing Well and conciseness is something the author emphasized early on in his book. He talked about how when he goes over his student's papers, he would put brackets around unnecessary sentences and words. A majority of their first drafts would have unnecessary filler. The students clung on to their precious words and "elegant" (self-indulgent) sentences for as long as possible, in the beginning of the class. Eventually, the students started being concise and intentional with their text, taking care with each word. In the end, they were appreciative of the teacher's scrutiny. Being concise is a useful skill, people don't want their time wasted.
It's like asking oneself "am I saying something or am I just talking?"
I first encountered this post on Beehaw but didn't have time to read it. I'm glad I ran across it again, here on Tildes, because I had time today to dig in and I really appreciate it. I think this...
I first encountered this post on Beehaw but didn't have time to read it. I'm glad I ran across it again, here on Tildes, because I had time today to dig in and I really appreciate it. I think this reflection on writing is not only a great piece of work in general, but it offers insight into neurodiversity in a way that I don't see often on the internet. So thank you, for writing this 💜
Neurodiversity
I'm also neurodivergent and have found myself often perplexed at the social dynamics present in conversations that I was simply unaware of. The propensity of neurotypical folks to project values on others during a conversation has never failed to amaze me. Most folks would argue that social cues convey information which neurodivergents often misjudge, but studies on spoken versus unspoken language seem to largely support the idea that these forms of language are frequently misinterpreted. Communication has a necessary back and forth between the participants due to its abstract nature - words are imprecise, often with multiple definitions or ways in which they can be used and are interpreted through the context of each individual's sum of life experiences with each word used. That is to say, if you teach a child that a word means x, they will believe that it means x until they are presented with people using it in other ways. I think most individuals do not consciously think about this when conversing with others, and make a lot of assumptions based on the contexts they have seen the word used.
I greatly appreciated your approach to explaining your own troubles with neurotypical communication and understanding what is and is not acceptable. I think many of your points on the length of the post are salient as guidelines to understand how one can write online to avoid misconceptions and misinterpretation. As an admin on Beehaw, I've ran into a number of individuals who struggle with the same issues you've pointed out in this post - many of them I've been able to advise on how to behave and what "being nice" means in the context of internet discussions. However, I have struggled greatly with about 3-4 individuals in particular who have seem to be disconnected from social norms entirely - they are not just unable to understand them, they seem incapable of perceiving them at all and I've been looking for resources which I could use to point them in the right direction to start their educational journey.
Power
I believe your framing of an author's need to acknowledge power imbalances is at the heart of a majority of fighting on the internet. I think one could easily spend thousands of words addressing all the contributing factors, but in short it's primarily a reflection of power imbalances. A man complaining on the internet that it's hard to find someone to have sex with will be met with a very different response than a woman using the same words. However, the subject is not inherently off limits to any gender or sex, but rather that the person who comes from a position of power must acknowledge that position of power to be taken seriously. If they do not, then those who have had their power deprived by people of the same category will be upset. Being concise about subjects like this online is problematic because bad actors can make the same points you are and until you speak more words it is impossible for a stranger to understand which category you belong to. The online space is also a convenient space to vent about actions and words which support existing imbalanced power structures without fear of social retaliation and individuals under stress from existing systems of power may use your post as a platform to air these grievances.
While it is impossible to identify a list of all sensitive topics, I think that categorizing these topics is actually a fairly simple process. I believe that if you pause and evaluate whether a topic of discussion can be used to reinforce bigoted beliefs, you will be able to identify nearly all sensitive topics. Following this rule any discussions which relate to one's sense of identity can be sensitive. Aspects of identity that are associated with serious power imbalances are more sensitive than those which are not. The color of one's skin and one's gender, for example, are associated with serious power imbalances in nearly every society on earth and are sensitive topics accordingly. Less sensitive topics would be identities which are not generally associated with serious power imbalances, such as one's artistic tendencies. Understanding how an artist could be discriminated against requires either an exposure to this kind of bigotry, the relevant historical context, the creativity to imagine the kinds of bigotry they might experience, or a particularly high level of emotional intelligence. Generally speaking the less sensitive a topic is the less time you need to spend considering the power imbalances as you are less likely to trigger someone.
Of relevant note, in Kenji Yoshino's book "Say the Right Thing", Kenji proposes the idea of a spectrum of controversy when it comes to topics of conversation. He broadly buckets conversation topics into five categories: taste, facts, policies, values, and humanity. These are arranged in order from least to most controversial. We can disagree on taste (which ice cream flavor is best) without too much controvery and can generally avoid intense trauma and discord except in rare cases, such as someone's family member being maimed by industrial ice cream machinery or as you pointed out in your article, some relevant historical context. As we move towards more controversial topics, however, it is much easier to stumble onto issues which directly effect one's ability to live and be healthy in a society and thus much more likely to be a less fruitful topic. Of important note- emotional intelligence is a necessary tool to frame which bucket a conversation falls into. For example, you might think that anti-racist education doesn’t belong in school, a question of policy, but an Asian parent may feel differently since they have to comfort their kid when they come home after being bullied with statements like “go back to where you came from”. To the Asian parent it's not a matter of policy, but a matter of humanity.
I will definitely enjoy reading your words later today. In fact, I will transfer them to my eReader, as I usually do with longer articles. It was amusing to me, when I scrolled way down, that you...
I will definitely enjoy reading your words later today. In fact, I will transfer them to my eReader, as I usually do with longer articles. It was amusing to me, when I scrolled way down, that you wrote, "No amount of effort seems sufficient to make me a long-winded writer." Seems like progress has been made.
Lou I have enjoyed your contributions to Tildes while I have been here. You were one of several who welcomed me. You live on a different continent and are from a different culture. I think the...
Lou I have enjoyed your contributions to Tildes while I have been here. You were one of several who welcomed me.
You live on a different continent and are from a different culture. I think the position you speak from is valuable in every case I have witnessed you contribute to the conversations here.
I read and appreciated your essay but I will miss you here if you go
I can’t
Exemplaryon WordPress, so consider this comment of mine as a pretty blue label for your amazing and incredibly thoughtful words. Thank you for taking the time to write this, and thank you for trusting us with its contents, lou. As someone who is verbose to a fault, I appreciate your insights and perspective.Like you identified, I think there’s a protective, defensive quality to comment length online because bad faith efforts have eroded the bedrock around shorter, more logical comments. Comments like that are now unfortunately likely to be seen as representing some awful things that many genuinely don’t. In an ideal world we would simply see those comments as their own communication style, but in the forever war of the internet they get misinterpreted as sniper fire. That’s not fair to people like you.
This sentence broke me. I’m so sorry.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always admired your ability to concisely convey your convictions. It’s a skill I don’t have, and it’s one that I think you are particularly good at. I can’t speak for all of Tildes, but I can say that you should never have to feel uncomfortable in your “glasses” around me. I like you and your communication style whether you’re writing long form stuff like this or the much shorter but no less valuable insights I’m so accustomed to from you.
I think the core problem is that almost all arguments online happen in text, which makes it much easier to go through them point by point. Since arguing that way is easier than reading something (maybe multiple times), everyone, including me, tends to fall into addressing points larger than the overal argument.
It's when you start quoting and responding to stuff by section where it can get kinda dangerous, because you become so clinical in your argument that the original point can get lost.
I'm definitely guilty of this too and I will try to be better in the future.
Thank you, @lou for sharing your perspective. You seem to be a kind soul and I hope that the responses here encourage you to be yourself more. Writing is a wonderful way of self-expression and you should be able to do it how you want.
I've been thinking about the ways in which our writing conveys emotion, and it is apparent to me that the emotion other's perceive in my writing is often not the one I actually hold. As you mention, quoting and responding to someone point by point leads to bad results. I believe that is because it signifies emotional intensity, as if the one deconstructing the "opposing" argument was doing so in a state of frenzy. The perception is that the critic was taken by rage. That is perceived as even more emotional when responses are quick and short, as if the commenter was so profoundly distressed, they could not wait to refute. It is clear to me that this interpretation is often correct, but not always. Some people write quickly because they think quickly (example: ADHD), and not because they're angry.
There are many signifiers of emotion that are interesting to think about.
And thank you so much for your kind words :)
Problem is, in text, I can make one, ten, or a hundred points before you can get a word in edgewise. Therefore, addressing multiple individual smaller points allows you to ensure that important things don't get lost in a deluge of text while ensuring that the readers know what you're typing about for each section.
In the real world, if we were arguing something and the other person brought up seven different things without giving you a chance to respond, you'd be rightly frustrated. Online, I can just "talk over" you with my points and then when you try to counter them say "You're just dissecting my argument line by line!"
I think a good strategy in that situation is to start a reply by acknowledging the big picture of what the person was asserting, address some number of points explicitly, and conclude by addressing how those points would change the overall conclusion. That let's you address specifics while acknowledging someone's main argument and not just nit picking individual points.
I would also say, it would help if people didn't post a dozen points so at once as well.
I don't disagree, but ironically enough, if our comments were briefer, this wouldn't be a problem wouldn't it?
I'm not saying that everyone does this, but I've noticed this sort of pattern within my own comments, nor am I saying that this is always a bad approach. Quoting can be a useful tool. I probably just overuse it.
This is only tangentially related to both the article and your post, but I think a lot of issues mentioned in both are caused (or at least exacerbated) by internet discourse at large following the exact opposite rules to ones we have here - instead of looking for a charitable interpretation, a large number of people (I feel like it might even be the majority, but might be my personal bias) is trying to find the most uncharitable interpretation and either argue with or make a fool of others.
I'm guilty of this too - very often my first instinct is to think "well look here at this moron/asshole!", but thanks to Tildes, more often than not I try to correct myself and look for ways this person could be right instead of trying to find ways in which they are wrong. Could they mean something else than what I understood it as at first glance? Maybe it's just their command of the language that's an issue rather than the message itself? Maybe they just have a bad day? Sure, telling someone off or making a fool out of them publicly can feel great (for some damn reason), but it's amazing how one's reaction can change if you don't give in to that first impulse and instead give it a bit more thought...
I'm sadly the opposite of concise most of the time so apologies for droning, but I wish so much there were more places online when people actively try to agree or at least actually talk to each other instead of hurling insults, nitpicking and degrading other posters. I love it here because I feel this is what is happening on Tildes - even though I don't post much, I'm continuously amazed at how civil and... I don't know, just... nice a conversation online can be, even when people disagree with each other.
I do hope there is a way to make this style of posting and discussion a trend - the internet needs more nice forums and fewer toxic garbage dumps...
Thank you so much for the kind words ;)
Ah, this is what I have been looking for, informal logic. That is what I have been wanting to read and learn more about. Do you have any favorite books on informal logic?
I understand this notion and it is frustrating. I feel like we live in a time where society interacts with each other in a state of heightened anxiety, especially in online discussion forums. I wish we could take things plainly at "face value" instead of conjuring every single possible other intention behind someone's post. Sometimes I wish we could "assume good faith" out of others, and even in the worst case scenario when we really feel someone is being a "bad actor," we could just ask "what do you mean?" and see how they clarify their thoughts. I wish people didn't feel like they have to write a comment with a list of disclaimers the length of a medication side effect pamphlet in order to be assumed to be in good faith. I would rather just try to assume good faith.
I don't know why, but this reminded me of during COVID times, when governments were encouraging people to get the free COVID vaccinations. There was a lot of people online talking about how it's dangerous and to not get it for health reasons, using arguments like "why would the government be offering to inject you with something for free?" and such. I would be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit scared about getting a COVID vaccination after seeing so many posts like this online and some friends of friends refusing to get it. Fear mongering is very effective on humans, especially as an anxious person. I decided to ask myself "what if the worst case was true and the vaccine I get is dangerous?" And I decided that in that case, at least I chose to trust in others and do something that I thought would help humanity. I chose to assume good faith.
I think in many situations, especially in online discourse, it is hard to assume good faith. Assuming good faith involves some degree of trust and vulnerability, especially due to the underlying fear of a "bad actor" taking advantage of people. But I do not believe that assuming good faith means being naive. We can always ask clarifying questions to deduce whether somebody is truly posting in good faith, and is being misunderstood, over someone who is attempting to be malicious.
I lost the book, but I am almost certain I studied an old first edition of Informal Logic by Douglas Walton. Looking it up now, it was substantially extended.
For what it's worth, you can't really teach logic fundamentals without informal logic. So any introduction should suffice.
That is indeed complicated. I intend to further elaborate on the limitations of compassionate interpretation to address those issues.
One thing I would add to the above point, and as a general comment on the article overall, is that length doesn't indicate quality. A post, article, or comment can be high quality and of any length. However, it feels that many folks who write long-form do so without putting in the ever increasing editorial effort to make it of high quality. E.g., deduplication, consolidating sections, harmonizing paragraphs for flow, vetting accuracy, checking tone, etc.
Barring situations where obvious and needed points are left out, I would prefer people to strive for shorter articles/posts/comments of a higher quality, even if it means adding a quick caveat about things left unaddressed. Sometimes a long comment just feels like a steamroller of text, and gets in the way of communicating ideas. Not every thought needs full elaboration.
Agreed. Sometimes I start reading a long post or comment, and I keep reading... and reading... and reading... until I finally wonder "What is your point?" It's usually buried under mountains of fluffy text and I have to expend effort piecing it together. And a few times after reading something long, I look through the whole text multiple times, confused and wondering "Was there even a point at all..? What did I just read?" (Luckily this has been a rare occurrence, though surprising to experience nonetheless.)
I recently read On Writing Well and conciseness is something the author emphasized early on in his book. He talked about how when he goes over his student's papers, he would put brackets around unnecessary sentences and words. A majority of their first drafts would have unnecessary filler. The students clung on to their precious words and "elegant" (self-indulgent) sentences for as long as possible, in the beginning of the class. Eventually, the students started being concise and intentional with their text, taking care with each word. In the end, they were appreciative of the teacher's scrutiny. Being concise is a useful skill, people don't want their time wasted.
It's like asking oneself "am I saying something or am I just talking?"
"Long" doesn't mean "good." Heh.
I first encountered this post on Beehaw but didn't have time to read it. I'm glad I ran across it again, here on Tildes, because I had time today to dig in and I really appreciate it. I think this reflection on writing is not only a great piece of work in general, but it offers insight into neurodiversity in a way that I don't see often on the internet. So thank you, for writing this 💜
Neurodiversity
I'm also neurodivergent and have found myself often perplexed at the social dynamics present in conversations that I was simply unaware of. The propensity of neurotypical folks to project values on others during a conversation has never failed to amaze me. Most folks would argue that social cues convey information which neurodivergents often misjudge, but studies on spoken versus unspoken language seem to largely support the idea that these forms of language are frequently misinterpreted. Communication has a necessary back and forth between the participants due to its abstract nature - words are imprecise, often with multiple definitions or ways in which they can be used and are interpreted through the context of each individual's sum of life experiences with each word used. That is to say, if you teach a child that a word means x, they will believe that it means x until they are presented with people using it in other ways. I think most individuals do not consciously think about this when conversing with others, and make a lot of assumptions based on the contexts they have seen the word used.
I greatly appreciated your approach to explaining your own troubles with neurotypical communication and understanding what is and is not acceptable. I think many of your points on the length of the post are salient as guidelines to understand how one can write online to avoid misconceptions and misinterpretation. As an admin on Beehaw, I've ran into a number of individuals who struggle with the same issues you've pointed out in this post - many of them I've been able to advise on how to behave and what "being nice" means in the context of internet discussions. However, I have struggled greatly with about 3-4 individuals in particular who have seem to be disconnected from social norms entirely - they are not just unable to understand them, they seem incapable of perceiving them at all and I've been looking for resources which I could use to point them in the right direction to start their educational journey.
Power
I believe your framing of an author's need to acknowledge power imbalances is at the heart of a majority of fighting on the internet. I think one could easily spend thousands of words addressing all the contributing factors, but in short it's primarily a reflection of power imbalances. A man complaining on the internet that it's hard to find someone to have sex with will be met with a very different response than a woman using the same words. However, the subject is not inherently off limits to any gender or sex, but rather that the person who comes from a position of power must acknowledge that position of power to be taken seriously. If they do not, then those who have had their power deprived by people of the same category will be upset. Being concise about subjects like this online is problematic because bad actors can make the same points you are and until you speak more words it is impossible for a stranger to understand which category you belong to. The online space is also a convenient space to vent about actions and words which support existing imbalanced power structures without fear of social retaliation and individuals under stress from existing systems of power may use your post as a platform to air these grievances.
While it is impossible to identify a list of all sensitive topics, I think that categorizing these topics is actually a fairly simple process. I believe that if you pause and evaluate whether a topic of discussion can be used to reinforce bigoted beliefs, you will be able to identify nearly all sensitive topics. Following this rule any discussions which relate to one's sense of identity can be sensitive. Aspects of identity that are associated with serious power imbalances are more sensitive than those which are not. The color of one's skin and one's gender, for example, are associated with serious power imbalances in nearly every society on earth and are sensitive topics accordingly. Less sensitive topics would be identities which are not generally associated with serious power imbalances, such as one's artistic tendencies. Understanding how an artist could be discriminated against requires either an exposure to this kind of bigotry, the relevant historical context, the creativity to imagine the kinds of bigotry they might experience, or a particularly high level of emotional intelligence. Generally speaking the less sensitive a topic is the less time you need to spend considering the power imbalances as you are less likely to trigger someone.
Of relevant note, in Kenji Yoshino's book "Say the Right Thing", Kenji proposes the idea of a spectrum of controversy when it comes to topics of conversation. He broadly buckets conversation topics into five categories: taste, facts, policies, values, and humanity. These are arranged in order from least to most controversial. We can disagree on taste (which ice cream flavor is best) without too much controvery and can generally avoid intense trauma and discord except in rare cases, such as someone's family member being maimed by industrial ice cream machinery or as you pointed out in your article, some relevant historical context. As we move towards more controversial topics, however, it is much easier to stumble onto issues which directly effect one's ability to live and be healthy in a society and thus much more likely to be a less fruitful topic. Of important note- emotional intelligence is a necessary tool to frame which bucket a conversation falls into. For example, you might think that anti-racist education doesn’t belong in school, a question of policy, but an Asian parent may feel differently since they have to comfort their kid when they come home after being bullied with statements like “go back to where you came from”. To the Asian parent it's not a matter of policy, but a matter of humanity.
I will definitely enjoy reading your words later today. In fact, I will transfer them to my eReader, as I usually do with longer articles. It was amusing to me, when I scrolled way down, that you wrote, "No amount of effort seems sufficient to make me a long-winded writer." Seems like progress has been made.
Lou I have enjoyed your contributions to Tildes while I have been here. You were one of several who welcomed me.
You live on a different continent and are from a different culture. I think the position you speak from is valuable in every case I have witnessed you contribute to the conversations here.
I read and appreciated your essay but I will miss you here if you go
I'm not going anywhere! Thank you so much for the kind words ;)