V
Glass Houses, etc.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:32
#1
Glass Houses, etc.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:34
#2
A follow-up to the thread quoted from here. A different angle that could sidetrack that discussion.
So its own thread.
Yiwah did not just object to having motives read in. She called it manipulative and bullying. I agree. But lets just take the minimum statement that its manipulative, and leave aside whether its 'bullying'. Not just manipulative, which has a lot of degrees. But very manipulative. And a strong arm way to manipulate people. Where I can see that I might easily be called disengenuous in calling people on that, is that I do something that amounts to the same thing. IE, even if I'm [mostly]innocent of reading hidden motive/agendas into what people have said and arguing with THAT rather than what people said and try to insist is what they meant.... that even if I dont engage in THAT particular strong arm manipulative discussion tactics, that [maybe] I engage in other strong arms that are just as bad and do just as much to poison the atmosphere.
I think that's what some of the 'glass houses' comments were about.
Such as, this comment following Yiwah's complaint about attributing hidden agendas, and the poisining consequences of that.
Grey bowels aside, people should not stand in glass houses and throw stones.
That highlighting of my quote was actually done by Yiwah. But its useful.
I left out her caveat and insistence that even if people have legitimate grievances about other strongarm discussion tactics, it does not excuse people from being called on the attack of attributing hidden agendas.
I agree. But the caveat aside....
I was aking a question there. Its the highlighted part.
So have at it.
And not just me. I'll take the liberty of opening up for criticism others with obviously thick skins and the ability to stand up for themselves [even if they dont like HAVING to do it].
Others who could be seen as stone casters in glass houses. But at least some specifics about what kind of stone(s) you think is cast.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:39
#3
You mean other kinds of tactics used, and what they are?
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:39
#4
The reason I'm doing this because its another part of getting at what turns discussions poisonous.
And of course thats going to 'just happen'. But we can at least try to identify what are pathological contributions to that.
Attributing hidden motives, and egregiously misrepresenting peoples words have been idenified as 2 things that force people on the defensive and unable to speak freely.
And I'm smart enough to at least know that just because I'm not in the habit of doing THOSE things, that doesnt mean I'm not engaging in other strong arm manipulations.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:41
#5
Geez, Glass Houses was one of my favourite Billy Joel albums.
We're human (with the notable exceptions of alien and GOD).
We are all going to have blind spots about our own behaviour and throw stones in glass houses.
Self-awareness is always a challenge and projection happens more often than most of us would like to admit.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:42
#6
Yes to Yiwah's question. Doesnt have to be pointing the finger at particular people. And that isnt desirable.
But sometimes you cant be sufficiently clear without pointing to particular instances.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:46
#7
I tend to meet aggression with aggression. It's a defensive mechanism. The two main problems with that are: it may not have actually been intended as aggression, and it escalates things.
I admire people who can deal with aggression with humour. It has even worked on me when I've been getting angry.
One thing off the top of my head.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:49
#8
Oh yeah, also one-line comments. Often they aren't self-explanatory (some are though) and can be read in many unpleasant ways (and perhaps are meant to be swipes, or not). I call it 'peanut-gallerying'. I've done it too. It ain't helpful.
That being said, I think some people are not comfortable with a frontal engagement and that's how they feel 'heard' or at least get their voice out...maybe they can't quite put their finger on what they're objecting to or commenting on. So. As long as it's not actually outright poisonous, it probably best to either ignore, or try to clarify if you must know.
Fri, 2010-08-20 12:58
#9
Some of us use one-liners because we think it says it all. it is the other end of the spectrum from long posts. I think both have value.
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:01
#10
Some of us use one-liners because we think it says it all. it is the other end of the spectrum from long posts. I think both have value.
Yup. Very few 'bright line' issues.
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:06
#11
That's the spirit, Yiwah.
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:10
#12
It's scary!
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:12
#13
Snert
As I see it, when I interact with what I think someone is saying or thinking or feeling, rather than their actual words, I'm getting to the real nub of the issue, even if they're too cowardly to come right out and say it. In a way, I'm doing them a favour by liberating their real self.
And when someone interacts with what they think I'm saying or thinking or feeling rather than my actual words, that's a little something called a STRAW MAN.
I don't live in a glass house so much as a one-way mirror house.
Fri, 2010-08-20 13:19
#14
As I see it, when I interact with what I think someone is saying or thinking or feeling, rather than their actual words, I'm getting to the real nub of the issue, even if they're too cowardly to come right out and say it. In a way, I'm doing them a favour by liberating their real self.
And when someone interacts with what they think I'm saying or thinking or feeling rather than my actual words, that's a little something called a STRAW MAN.
I don't live in a glass house so much as a one-way mirror house.
Excellent example of perception. Most people wouldn't engage in these things if they didn't honestly feel justified.
Sat, 2010-08-21 10:11
#15
Did you forget this one Maysie?
:)
Sat, 2010-08-21 10:17
#16
Maysie
Apparently I did.
Three is too many threads, by the way.
Okay. I guess I'll never go out on a Friday night again.
Here's the thing. There's a reason why there's a rule against complaining about the behaviour of specific babblers in threads. The reason is, this is a public space, there will always be disagreements, and calling people out by name has never gone well and never will.
I'm going to use the word "you" a lot, so that whoever reads this feels like it's about them.
My suggestion back in some thread or other stands. Why can't you just send the person a pm and talk about it there? Moderators are surely not here to moderate various personal and political differences aside from the obvious ones.
And the other thing is, nobody can control what someone else posts. So, let's say as an example, I've been fairly thoughtful about this post, and how I say it. I have absolutely no control over someone else reading it, posting a one-liner snark, or even someone posting a thorough critique of my poor and dreadful moderating skills.
That's kinda how it goes. It's a open, public discussion board.
I'm not saying that in the "get thicker skin" vein, since I disagree with that philosophy.
If something is (or is perceived as) a personal attack:
1. Flag it or email me and Catchfire. We may decide to take action, we may not.
2. PM the person.
3. Once those are tried, let it go. Ignore the person. Post your stuff and enjoy babble the way that you enjoy it. Whatever.
Neither of these actions may resolve it to your liking. Again, there's a limit to how far we (Catchfire and I) can go to establish any kind of harmony.
And now I'm going to be a spammer and I will post this to the other active reactions thread about meta issues.
Sat, 2010-08-21 10:19
#17
And there's one more!
[i know of]
Sat, 2010-08-21 10:50
#18
Catchfire
I'm going to close this and a few other reaction threads. Maysie's right: this is too many. I know you feel that this is a unique tack, Ken, and maybe it is, but I don't think it's one that can't be addressed in another reaction thread.