How can I do better?
The other day, I made a comment regarding our political climate that a number of people reacted to with anger. It is ironic because it is the very thing i was commenting on, that I wanted to avoid causing more emotional distress in that segment of the populace in my country which is right now very upset. I made my comment without taking into consideration that the very environment on tildes was no different than the environment I was commenting on.
It is something that has caught me off-guard in the past on this site as well, where I said something that I thought of as innocuous, which some people reacted to with extreme emotions. When I was told to police myself more, I felt indignant and infuriated. I thought I was already trying to walk on eggshells enough!
I don't think anything I've said or done on Tildes is objectively offensive or inappropriate - and I recognize that sometimes people see things from a completely different reality than I experience. I want to make a solid effort to get along with people here, and that appears to mean that I need to learn how to communicate in a way that doesn't provoke discord.
So how do I do it? What can I do to make sure that I'm not pissing people off here just by conversing and expressing my thoughts or feelings? What specific strategies can I employ to filter my self so that it is safe? Cfabbro and Deimos both have told me that I'm doing it wrong, but i want to know how to do it right. Please teach me.
There were a few things that stuck out in my mind:
Using the term "winning" in reference to changes the "other side" vehemently disagrees with isn't going to get you much in the way of civil discourse.
This seemed like maximum pear clutching considering I can easily point out multiple murders from right-wing people attacking immigrants and others since Trump was elected. I cannot, however, do the same for finding multiple left-wing murderers for the same timespan. It's also a ridiculous leap to go from "incivility" to physical violence.
I think you should be able to realize why your edit was extremely problematic.
Indeed. Hindsight is 20/20. I made a serious error in judgment when I posted that comment, when I phrased it in the way that I did without stopping to think about how what I wrote might be perceived. I know that nothing I say can convince someone who has already decided that I posted in bad faith that I truly had benign (in fact positive) intentions, so I won't try to defend it - and I definitely don't want to express anything that suggests the emotions in response to it were invalid, because they were totally valid.
This is the dilemma I am facing though - how do I take this specific error, and transform it into a generalized strategy that can prevent offense from being taken in the future for any situation?
edit: Now that I'm thinking about this a little bit more, do you think it would help if I rephrased the comment with the hindsight I have now? Would that be a good practice, or would it help ameliorate the situation to any degree?
That is an interesting question. It would be extremely interesting, at the very minimum. It could also backfire spectacularly if you aren't able to achieve your stated goals here.
Hi, there! I'm offering the following suggestions as someone who writes professionally.
First and foremost, I would encourage you to pay very, very close attention to the structure-based elements of your writing. Use completely correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization, not just because it helps to keep things clear, but because it shows that you truly wrote what you meant to write. Something as small as a missing comma can completely change the meaning of given sentence (and by extension, the meaning of an entire piece), and while not everyone will consciously notice the omission, it will still have an impact on how everyone approaches your work.
Following from that – and this is something that you touched on in your comment here – keep in mind that the English language doesn't actually have any true synonyms. "Anger" means something different than "rage," and they both mean something different than "fury." For example, if I were to write "I got upset when I saw a two-for-one deal on hotdogs," the ambiguity of the word "upset" would allow for comedic undertones. Conversely, if I were to write "I was absolutely infuriated by that two-for-one sale on hotdogs," it would suggest that I had some concerning hang-ups about tubes of processed meat.
In short, writing to the very best of your ability makes it clear that you put time and thought into your words, which then invites deeper consideration of them. It also keeps your audience from experiencing the cognitive issues (subconscious though they might often be) associated with encountering text-based errors. When readers are more engrossed in a piece, they'll pay more attention to the nuances of the language that you used, which will help ensure that your intended tones come across in an effective manner. If you take the added step of considering each individual word's context and implications, you'll be able to link them together in a way that includes intrinsic emotional content as well as information.
TL;DR: Write as well as you possibly can. Proofread what you've written. Consider each individual word.
~offtopic
So glad to see you here! Thanks for contributing!
It's my pleasure! I'm pleased to be here!
Thank you so much for this advice! I really appreciate the specific actionable strategy you've offered and the overall strategy of making my contributions as high quality from a technical standpoint as possible. I will redouble my efforts to proofread for proper spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc. (though grammar has always been kind of an arcane art for me that I never quite mastered, I can put more effort into it regardless).
I've posted something that sort of touches on this topic previously, where it seemed that a lot of users are sort of hypercritical of their own contributions, and often end up just not posting at all if they get frustrated. Do you ever experience this? Or have you just developed a sufficient competency that you're able to push through it, knowing that your work meets your expectations for quality?
What you're describing – that sense of frustration associated with being hypercritical of one's own work – is something that's experienced by everyone who can accurately attest to being a writer. The thing is, it isn't actually an obstacle: It's a sign that you're on the right track.
Let's suppose that I wanted to describe an encounter with (what seemed to be) a sentient garbage disposal that was actively trying to irritate me. Presented in that way, the situation on its own would look outwardly absurd, so it might appear to be effective as a piece of comedy... but it wouldn't necessarily capture the feelings of annoyance or dismay that I could have experienced while dealing with the appliance in question. As a result, the humor itself would be undermined, and the entire piece would end up being less potent than was intended.
Faced with this challenge of building foundations from real-world (and ostensibly negative) emotions and then viewing them through a laughter-inducing lens, many people would get a little bit fed up. It's difficult to find the right words, the right meter, and even the right punctuation marks to use, especially if the end goal is to both evoke a specific tone and balance between two perspectives. At the same time, though, that place of equilibrium is where the most pointed, poignant, or profound thoughts and sentiments can be offered, and that remains true regardless of what a person might be discussing.
The best advice I can give you on this topic is to look at frustration as being a sign that something is worth working on. It's tempting to just give up and offer what seems to be "good enough," but the end result is a disservice to both the readers and the writer.
There's an old adage that you may have heard, and which I'd like to paraphrase here:
If you're encountering resistance, then you're going the right way.
I assume you're referring to this comment.
You could start by polishing up your language:
"this 'win' for my side is just going to add to the pile of things turning the other side rabid" This is insulting and derogatory. You're implying that the "other side" is full of crazy people frothing at the mouth, rather than people just like you who've thought about their politics just like you and want to express those views civilly just like you. Referring to them as "rabid" is not doing you any favours.
"Trump said I'd get tired of winning and I didn't think it would be possible, but this might be it." This is arrogant and condescending. Politics isn't a game. It shouldn't be about winning and losing. It should be about making your country a better place, even if you differ on what "better" means and how to get there.
"I am already scared for my and others' physical safety as a Trump voter/supporter [...] I don't wear MAGA hats specifically for the reason that I don't want to provoke a violent confrontation in public". You're basically saying that you're scared some leftist is going to punch you in the face for wearing a cap (unless you're trying to tell us that you are going to throw the first punch...?). You're accusing left-wing people of being randomly violent without provocation.
You couldn't just express your opinion. You had to throw some shade at the other side while doing so: "you're crazy violent people, but we're still winning so much I'm getting tired of it".
It's easy to see why Deimos and cfabbro assumed you were trying to stir up trouble. Not only was your comment insulting to people but, even if we remove the insults, you were throwing fuel on the fire with remarks about how you're getting tired of winning.
Now I'm going to get controversial.
I used to moderate /r/PoliticalDiscussion. Almost all the discussion there was about American politics which, quite bluntly, I couldn't give a rat's arse about; I've got no skin in that game. So, I was able to stay impartial. While moderating that subreddit, I noticed one particular trend: one side tended to resort more often to direct personal attacks than the other side and, even when two people were insulting each other, the insults from the person on one side were generally nastier than the insults from the person on the other side.
Would you care to guess which side was more insulting, more often? I'll put you out of your misery: it was the right-wing side. I also noticed the same tendency in the political discussions that happened regularly in /r/Australia while I was moderating there, so it's not an American thing. I don't pretend to understand the cause; I'm merely reporting my observation. While the left-wing people usually got angrier about the politics they disagreed with, the right-wing people were more likely to insult the people they disagreed with.
The reason I mention this is because I saw the same thing in your comment. Even though you did it unintentionally (I assume!), your comment still managed to throw a few insults at "the other side" (rabid, violent).
Obligatory disclaimer: I am not saying that left-wing people do not insult their debating opponents. Far from it! Some left-wing people are just as uncivil as right-wing people. But, overall, whenever I saw a personal insult in a political argument, it was more likely to be coming from a right-wing person than from a left-wing person.
I think this topic is definitely a step in the right direction, and you have gotten some good advice here already. However one thing I want to touch on that nobody has addressed yet:
Recognizing your mistakes is important and I think one major thing you need to recognize is that nothing is truly "objectively" offensive or inappropriate since offense involves emotions by its very nature, and appropriateness involves being cognizant of the social and situational context in which you make your statements. So one thing you should really try to focus on more, IMO, is taking your audience and surroundings into consideration before you speak, especially when it comes to your particular choices in language, phrasing and framing.
E.g. When Trump lost the initial appeals for his immigration ban all those months ago (or any other "win" for "the left"), had I gone to a primarily right leaning site and said something similar to what you did in the Justice Kennedy retirement announcement topic, ("This is going to make the right rabid. I'm afraid Conservatives are going to get violent now. I'm so tired of winning. edit: Oh I'm not afraid for the left, I'm afraid for the right since they are outnumbered and will all get killed if they get violent.") I'm sure you can see how that could be perceived as incredibly offensive/inappropriate, intentionally trolling and how the only possible outcome to making those statements would be anger, can't you?
And another thing to consider is something @deimos touched on in that very thread, "at some point inadvertent trolling isn't much better than doing it deliberately" since the outcome is the same and the site suffers as a result.
p.s. And despite my recent criticism, I do want to make it clear that I would genuinely be sad to see you leave the site, by your own choice or otherwise, since I have enjoyed our interactions, I still greatly admire your resilience in the face of intense criticism and I do think that you have contributed (and can potentially continue to contribute) a great deal to the site as a largely rational counterbalance to the general political lean of the users here.
That's a really good point about objectivity and offense. Even as I posted that, I wondered if maybe I shouldn't have said "objectively" because that would imply that any individual even has the ability to see reality objectively. I kind of rationalized it away by sort of thinking "well, it should be apparent that by my contrasting this with a reality that other people see where it might be different, that that implies my perception of the 'objective' reality is also itself subjective... so it's probably okay." BUT NOPE! xD Good catch. Thank you.
I completely and wholly agree that I failed to take into account the radically different appearance of the phrasing I used from what I intended to communicate. Even your description of it here comes across as far more flippant than I realized it sounded, so thank you for hammering it home even more how badly this one stupid comment appeared through that lens.
What deimos said really scared me. It sounded like a threat of "shape the fuck up, or you're out of here". Given the context of this discussion is all about perceptions varying from intent, I can imagine that he meant it in a completely different way - but that isn't how it sounded to me. You reiterating the point echoes that threat still, (and the use of "by your choice or otherwise") and the anxiety at the thought of fucking up accidentally once more and that being that for me... it's paralyzing. What can you do if the sole admin tells you your contribution is shit, and it doesn't even matter that you didn't mean for it to be shit - because just by posting it, you're shit.
But all I can do is keep trying. I meant what I said about this whole mess of communication and mutual understanding when talking to Flashynuff, that "Patience and persisting in the attempt at mutual understanding, even in the face of adversity" are probably key. I feel like there's a mountain of adversity on this site, but somewhere in the mire there's a narrow path to success if I can keep on pushing. If I get banned, then oh well - but until I do, well the responsible thing to do if I really care about my goal is to keep trying.
You're right about this post being part of the way forward. It's why it's here. I'm unhappy that it has to be this way - not being just open and being myself, but if I frame it in my mind as learning a foreign language, it makes it more palatable.
And yes, I do hope to contribute. I do still intend on putting something together on extremism like we discussed (though given this recent incident that probably needs to wait), and I have a much larger project in mind as well that I briefly mentioned to buckeyesundae. Thanks for being a friend in spite of adversity.
I'm pretty sure that was the intent and it's understandable why, from his perspective. The site has an absolute ton of development work that still needs doing and every time a controversy or fight breaks out, it takes him away from that. Opensourcing has already been delayed by several months in part because of him having to deal with those issues and when only a handful of users are seemingly always at the center of it all, it doesn't look good for them.
And for the record, I include myself in that statement since I have gotten in a few fights on the site already as well, which I regret and am trying to avoid doing again, as I suspect you are too.
I don't think any framing is even necessary, since that is exactly what it is. But again, you're not the only one having to learn a new language nor the only one feeling like they are walking on egg shells. As I have mentioned to you before, I feel I am very much in the same position since I can be an arrogant asshole at times and that isn't appropriate here... especially since @deimos has allowed me to assist him in a minor official capacity and so my actions and behavior reflect directly on him.
You too, man. This is a learning experience for all of us and all we can do is try to help each other as best we can.
I think this is an excellent illustration of just how destructive and divisive the U.S.'s current political climate is. Even when expectations at a high level (as they are here), it's incredibly hard to have a constructive discussion due to how far apart the core values of the left and the right have drifted. How is one supposed to respond civilly to someone who supports a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to one's own existence? (I want to clarify, that statement is meant to be as general as possible and not directed toward any particular group). I understand how difficult it is to talk about things that are controversial without falling back on easy 'gotchas' and petty shit slinging, and I also acknowledge how truly cathartic falling back can be for those who are upset with reason. At the same time, I feel like there can be a higher standard for conversations on tildes that involves those things as little as possible. I want to believe that you're here in good faith, just as I am — I'd honestly be sad if you weren't.
One strategy that might help is to always make sure to put yourself into the other person's shoes. Try to truly understand what their perspective is, what their perspective is influenced by, and the types of things that would be taken harshly and why. This helps keep conversations on track and gives you the opportunity to reflect on if what you're saying is constructive or just something meant to prod at a sore spot.
Another strategy would be to always explain your entire thought process. Like I said earlier, the core values of liberals and conservatives are quite far apart right now, so there might be a lot of things that you genuinely believes to be true about the world that someone else doesn't believe at all. Explaining completely how you've arrived to your conclusions helps bridge the gap between those core values and makes sure everyone in the conversation has all the context they need to have a constructive dialogue.
Hopefully that helps!
I really like this comment a lot. Thank you. I think empathy is hugely important, and it's so difficult sometimes because like you said, we may have beliefs about the world that are completely different - and if you don't have a full grasp of that perspective it's hard to really place yourself in those shoes. It gets even worse - because every single individual has a unique experience which alters the world that they see and live in, which is almost totally opaque to those outside of their own mind. I mean, there will be similarities of course, and I don't know if we can have perfect understanding without communication first.
So your second point really solves that! Trying to, as best as possible, explicate the reality and thought process behind one's perspective or perceptions. That one is hard too - especially if it's long, involved, or considerably different from what someone else's might be because... a lot of times it would probably be uninteresting, boring, seen as propaganda, or just too much information. I think on highly contentious issues where there's serious, involved discussion, it can probably work - but it also probably requires all participants in the dialogue to be interested, willing, and invested in mutual understanding.
Add to that that for most people, I don't know if we even know why we all think and feel the way we do, much less have the ability to put it into words. And even if we think we do know, that might be a rationalization for irrational behavior! What a mess!
Patience seems like it would be key. Patience and persisting in the attempt at mutual understanding, even in the face of adversity.
What do you think?
Yeah, unfortunately this is the point where a lot of discussions fall apart. It's a lot of work to do all those things, and people are lazy. The world would be better if everyone did them though.
I believe this is where being open to criticism is important, as well as giving honest and constructive criticism to others. Everyone's ideas can be flawed and and it's through discussion that we find those flaws.
I will say, if I were to re-write that comment i refer to in my post above, I do know a few things i would change. For one thing I wouldn't use a word like "rabid", I'd say something like "extremely emotionally distressed". But this is with hindsight - i still need to figure out how to catch these things before I see the reaction.
I think this is the perfect place to reply with my own advice.
As you'd mentioned, using words like "rabid" is definitely something that should be avoided. More generally, I would advise careful consideration of your choice of words in any context, both here on Tildes and elsewhere, even among people who more generally share your ideals and beliefs.
The reason for this is because written communication is so vastly different from verbal communication. From spoken words you can extrapolate, to some degree, a speaker's intent because you can listen to the way their voice fluctuates and you can hear any intensity or lack thereof in their words. But in written speech, you can only gauge tone from the words someone chooses.
Pointing out the difference between "rabid" and "extremely emotionally distressed" is perfect here. The former is terse, conveys an image of an animal frothing at the mouth, and is typically used to demean others. By using the word "rabid" in writing, the only thing the reader can reasonably interpret is that you were intentionally slinging an insult. Please note my emphasis on the word "reasonably" here. It's true that the reader could interpret otherwise, but given my prior note about the most common use of the word "rabid" as a demeaning adjective, it's not reasonable to expect someone to believe it was used innocently.
In general, it's just important to consider the appropriateness of a term you're thinking of using. Even if it's conveniently short, sometimes it's better to opt for a lengthier alternative to avoid misunderstandings. When in doubt, leave it out.
Of course, it's a skill just like any other, and odds are you're going to screw up. I've done so quite a few times myself in the past. But there's another tool you have available to you: if people are reacting angrily at an interpretation you didn't intend, try not to double down and reply angrily in return, and especially don't use "you" language when replying about the misunderstanding. Instead, use "I" language. Make it clear that there is miscommunication and that you can see why people are upset at your choice of words, apologize for your choice of words, and try to rephrase your comment to better convey the message you intended.
That last bit is particularly important. Being able to own up to and apologize for mistakes--no matter how minor they may seem--and using those mistakes as a learning opportunity for both yourself and the reader by trying to learn to better communicate your message is an essential skill for both casual and professional communications.
I'd like to point out that this is coming from someone on the autism spectrum. I've had many, many failed social interactions with others because my communication skills were behind everyone else's. It's taken me years to learn how to communicate somewhat effectively, and even now I still screw up at times. So believe me when I say that I understand how difficult this sort of transition in mindset can be. I'm not judging you here at all, just giving you advice based on my observations derived from my own experiences.
Erm. I'm almost scared to say something here. I'm coming more from a non-political perspective, and I'm hoping that taking it out of the political realm might help?
Growing up in Hawai'i makes people both more and less tolerant of differences at the same time. There are areas like this all over the world; ports and old trade hubs where there are no racial or cultural majorities, but people still manage to not riot or kill each other every day.
I grew up seeing people be incredibly tolerant of different behaviours, including ones which might be based in mental health issues. I also grew up seeing people being incredibly intolerant of rudeness that could be construed as intentional. As in, large 200 kg linebacker built people dusting it up with individuals who felt that sarcasm was an art form to be used in all situations.
For people who come to Hawai'i for more than a vacation week, I have only two rule suggestions.
Mumber, I enjoy your presence on ~Tildes. And I feel for you hugely; half my family is more along the lines of your political persuasion. I often choose to be silent than express my views simply because I'm tired. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'll treat you to lunch.
lmao. Sounds like good advice.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I really appreciate it, meristele. <3
I would be interested in your opinion on how the author of this thread could "do better"
https://tildes.net/~news/2z0/it_is_happening_here_trump_is_already_early_stage_mussolini
So at one level, the source material we're talking about was really obvious to me in its problems. It was like marching through a funeral singing "Staying Alive" by the Bee Gees ("Well you can tell by the way I use my walk, I'm woman's man. No time to talk"). Maybe that'd be appropriate at my funeral (and I welcome you to sing whatever song you think would normally be the most disrespectful, I'd roll in laughter if I were still alive), but in the main it's probably something to be avoided.
At another level, the reaction said about as much as the offense. Maybe I'm displaying a bit too much of my politically-split upbringing, but I thought the predictability in the outrage was driven by misinterpretation of what you intended, one that is obvious to someone who's close and familiar with leftists, but one that catches just about anyone else off guard. Other people have pointed out the barbed words that lead people to suspect malice, so I'll just focus on the structure of the comment.
The greater context of your comment made sense if I were a reader (and I am) that was around for the intense civility discussion about Ren Hen. It was there I believe, or maybe another thread, where you commented a little less emotionally directly about being worried about the intensity of the current political climate, to the point that you were afraid for your physical safety. This is context that was not available to the average reader of that comment, and so that somewhat off-topic nature, combined with the barbed words, seemed a perfect fit for a viral, angry response from leftist readers (of whom there are a few). What's more, it is a perfect fit for sympathetic readers of both right and center. So no matter what we have a rather offtopic comment that seems perfectly designed to explode.
The fact that you meant every word just reinforces that problem! I've linked this video once or twice before, but it's worth revisiting now in this context. Your comment was like a megavirus, a supergem, that perfectly appealed to leftists, right-wingers, and moderates all in different ways that appealed to one emotion or another. Leftists would feel anger at the ... Bee Gees singing ("We can try to understand | The New York Times' effect on man"), Right-wingers would empathize with your fear and want to ease your pain/protect you, and the moderates (whom I'll speak for here) would feel some level of existential dread at the all-too-predictable comment chain to follow.
I would say the overt emotional appeals mattered more than just about anything else to that comment people will point to. The small, probably unconscious slights would convince a leftist (who needs little convincing in the first place) that you're out for blood; the expressed fear would resonate with right-wingers who likely also have been feeling a conflict brewing for some time; and the slights combined with the fear would set a moderate up to cry "why the hell did this discussion about a supreme court vacancy go into overt talk of revolution"--something that I would bet moderates say pretty regularly as shit escalates.
Why aren't they "rightists"? Or, why aren't they "left-wingers"? It might seem like only a minor point, but I'm curious about why you're using different language for each group.
I don't hear many people calling leftists "left wingers" around here. And I don't hear many people calling right-wingers "rightists." I just went to the terms I hear being used for each and kept to it.
Okay.
In my observation, "leftist" is usually used by right-wing people as a dismissive term for those pesky left-wingers. While it might not have been intended that way by you, it comes with that dismissive overtone based on my reading history.
I can see that. Part of the struggle here is that there is no one term that will please everyone on the left. Liberals are not progressives, which are not anarchists, which are not communists, etc. "Left-winger" and "leftist" make no difference to me, but I can see how they might make one to other people.
I mean nothing by it except to group people on the left together into one, unhappy, uncomfortable group.