Hostile assumptions? Or just calling it like you see it?

KenS wrote:

For me at less, I cant begin to guess what you are saying remind. Grey bowels? Which is... At least I know what the stones and glass houses is about. But no idea who you are referring to. There's only an opening post, but I don't know if you are referring to the post itself or someone or something else.

Again, not to single someone out, but 'oblique' comments are part of it too, I think.  And this is something I think is definitely 'borderline', in that it's a very common thing to do...I'm certain I've done it myself...where you 'comment' on something or someone without actually quoting them, or specifically referencing what you're referring to.

I say it's borderline, because it's not always bad, or malicious, or anything...Caissa's quote which I put in the OP is an example of this (not really being an attack...I think).  It's a commentary, it was made without quoting anyone, or referencing anything specifically.  It actually was quite clear though, so that was nice, but sometimes the comments are just 'in-jokes' of sorts and not meant to put anyone on the spot.

Then again, when you have people accusing others of having dark, nefarious plans, then the oblique comments can also start looking threatening.

writer wrote:

I call it mindreading. I agree with you, Yiwah. It's really destructive to the health of the board.

It's the main reason I struggle with whether or not I want to give up and leave the forum, or fight what is driving me away. 

I also honestly think it's an unhealthy position to take.  There's enough shit to worry about without being overly concerned with people's 'hidden motives'.

writer wrote:

I hope you stay. I believe critical mass is a crucial part of shifting the cultural norm. Because I know talking about it over and over again through the years hasn't done much.

I certainly have had a hard time putting my finger on what bugs me about this place.  Not just this place...every forum has it's 'thing'.  I'm newer here so I haven't figured out the 'thing' and either accepted it or ignored it, which is what is probably easiest.  So people might ask why the hell I keep having these meta-meta-meta discussions (as they've been dubbed, and we can all just refer to them as MMMDs if we want :P), but I'm trying to work out why I leave babble at times with my teeth clenched.  I think by discussing, so having people's input helps me see things I probably wouldn't see on my own, and it helps.  I'm not presenting a figured-out thesis.

(not sure that was relevant but I wanted to say it)

So I did a search after a while, to see if people had discussed these kinds of things here before...and I was both heartened and depressed to find MANY threads on similar subjects.  Heartened, because it means I'm not just imagining shit...and depressed because many of the same concerns are still being repeated, literally years later.  Depressed, because many of those threads were 'good-bye' threads as people exited the forum for good.  Depressed because some of the posters still here made what appear to be honest stated commitments to trying to fix things...and I wonder if they feel it's gotten better, worse, or stayed the same.

So I'm not sure how useful it is to discuss it, if nothing happens.  Yet, how do you get critical mass if you don't know what you're massing for?

remind wrote:

Frankly, did come out and say it....

 

....anyhow this is just another pointless thread, at best, that I will not be continuing to participate in.

Alright.  No one can make you want to change anything.

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I just ignore it.

 

It is easier for me to simply ignore it and focus on the actual debate than the snide little remarks and assumptions and hostility.

 

Maybe I am a stooge or a plant or an NSA spambot. Who cares? That does not make my argument any less correct.

I wish I could ignore it...I can for short periods of time, but that usually ends up in me getting 'sloppy' and saying something that is jumped on and twisted so out of shape that it no longer resembles anything remotely like what I intended.  Perhaps it's a perversity of mine, but I have a hard time letting that sort of thing go.

I don't want to feel like I have to quadruple check every word I use so someone won't find some way to impugn my motives.  THAT'S WHAT YOU DO AMONG ENEMIES.

Your comment about being able to see a person's points regardless of who they are (or who you think they are) is a good one though.  That's what I aspire to do, as much as possible...though it can be difficult when you've had some really unpleasant interactions with certain people.  Difficult, but not impossible.

writer wrote:

Exactly. And the reason why a critical mass of people not willing to engage in the practice is so important. I think of how many great participants were driven away by it, and can only imagine how many lurkers are convinced they aren't up for joining in the first place.

The thick-skin argument is great for those who have thick skin. I don't think that should be a requirement on a progressive board.

Thank you...you've put your finger on something that has been bothering me, but I didn't really realise it consciously until now.  That's why I can handle it when it's a place I don't care about...I don't expect that place to be tolerant, or to aspire to good communication.   But I do sort of have those expectations on a progressive board.  What is the point of coming down on oppressive language, if we allow these kinds of interactions to go unchecked?  I mean...again I don't think it's up to moderators to change it...but as progressives, aren't we supposed to be constantly aware of the way we communicate?  Is that part of how we progress?

Is just not engaging in it enough?

I mean...should you speak up when it's done?  To you or others?  Or does that make it worse?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

<joke>

Yeah, though then you only get accused of being passive-aggressive

</joke>

Well I think a lot of passive agressive behaviour is going on, tbh.  I'd say that's what the oblique comments are about...the ones that aren't just in-jokes or innocent commentary. 

I think the trick to avoid being passive agressive is to be very direct.  "You just accused this person of lying about their motives." or "That was a personal attack".  I don't think there's any passivity to it, and if you're careful, it's not aggressive either.

Slumberjack wrote:

Personally I see nothing wrong with a little friction and intensity every now and again. Although few will admit it, I suspect many others here feel the same way judging by the historically numerous instances where they've initiated or joined in it themselves. There's far too much normalcy, obedience and tolerance for the intolerable everywhere else.

It's no wonder to consider that people come here already laden with varying degrees of exasperation with which to discuss and analyze topics of interest amongst themselves, precisely due to their routine and purposeful misrepresentation in the corporate noise machinery, if they merit attention at all.

Challenging assumptions and statements by applying one methodology or another has always been part of the culture here. Mostly, thoughtless comments and views that have no place are sifted through the mesh eventually when taken up by the community.

 

It's my view that we aren't talking about a 'little friction and intensity', but rather a pervasive hostility.  I could be wrong, but I certainly feel it.

As for people joining in, well, tempers can get short.  Sometimes we all need to step away from the keyboard.  However, I don't believe that the attacks I'm referring to (accusations of motive etc) are generally motivated by temper.  Again, I could be wrong, but they seem to be pulled even when someone appears to be feeling 'even'.

Sure, people can be exasperated, but does it really have to come here?  This isn't the comment section of the cbc.  We aren't up against a legion of bigots.  We really aren't.  We don't need to act like we are.

It seems like this problem, whatever it is, has been around for a while and hasn't necessarily gotten better...though I'll defer to the old-timers on that one.

absentia wrote:

This is interesting, Yiwah. At first, when i came across one of your attempts to figure out the dynamics, i was confused: did not understand what your angle was, or why you would keep working at this problem, that i didn't perceive as a problem.

Now i see it. I had been away for several years and thought i was returning to a familiar place. Well, yes and no, as it turned out. Some of the same people are still here, still championing sweetness, light and reasn. But i find the general tone far pricklier now, edgier, more suspicious. Less humour, more word-policing. More people jumping on a phrase, or a single small point in the middle of another's argument, taking it out of context and running off, waving it like a pirate flag. More "smacks of" or "feeds into" the bad thing - whatever the bad thing is in a particular thread - judgment of what someone is saying. I must admit, it put me off a bit.

I'm working on a sort of half-assed theory of why it happens more now than four years ago. Siege mentality? Maybe it's a result of what's happening out in the world. All those rabid right-wingers flinging BS at anyone even a little bit left of .... i don't know whom to cite: they make Ronald Reagan sound red. And all those should-be-liberals denying it as if their life depended on not being caught out. So, anyone who really is a socialist or farther left, that person has probably been subjected a lot of abuse. Maybe this is a reflex, like an abused person flinching whenever they see a raised hand.   

I think that's definitely part of it.  I have considered that I don't feel all that much more 'under seige' than I ever have...being native on the Prairies is about as 'under seige' as you can get in this country, so it's been a constant.  I do recognise that the recent polarisation is really freaking unbelievably huge, but I've also established myself enough in an environment where it can't 'get to me' as much as it would have say, when I was younger.  So I'm a bit insulated in that I don't have to deal with a lot of rabid right-wingers or bigots, and I don't bother with the television at all.

But I don't want to live under seige.  My parents remind me what it was like when 'snitch-jacketing' was a serious problem on the left, particularly in the native movement.  And when I get accused of being...whatever...I think of that.

I also want to add that part of the reason I can't let this go is that I was in an abusive relationship for 10 years, where the most bizarre suspicions about me were 'normal', and my words were constantly taken out of context and turned around.  It was horrible, and confusing, and I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck it happened.  So communication, for me, is not just an academic exercise.  It's THE thing we need to work on as humans.