5 ms·

The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. Please don't accuse others of not paying att

The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. Please don't accuse others of not paying attention. It's not nice, and it does a bad job of communicating your message.

ubernostrum 8y ago
The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. If I were the type of the anti-"diversity" person, my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech, by making certain types of speech out of bounds, and then assert that free speech is a good in itself -- one of the highest, if not the single highest such good -- and then rain down anger upon you for doing so. Further, I would retreat into weaponizing your own advocated guidelines against you, by asserting that you have uncharitably read things (such as accusation) into my statement when they were not present in the plain text, and then calling for you to be held accountable for the violation. Consider that that's what you are implicitly supporting when you suggest that a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind.
- yebyen 8y ago
  > a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind. That is bluntly unkind. You've taken an opinion and phrased it as "a factual statement." The "fact" you're positing is that there are two camps, those that don't understand because they are purely ignorant, and those that don't understand because they are intentionally fed false information. (How charitable!) What was the original "factual statement" again? I don't even know, because you've told "me" that whatever my opinion is, if it disagrees with yours, then I'm in one of two camps and they're both wrong. (NB: you didn't tell me anything, I'm just trying to engage you in this thought exercise that you seem to want to have.)
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth.
- jowsie 8y ago
  > my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech Do you not realise that free speech doesn't apply to whatever random online forum you decided to sign up too?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    The idea that "free speech" == "only protection from state censorship" is an americanism, and not some universally accepted dictum. Historically it wasn't even always the state that suppressed free speech - it was often some church, mobs of "concerned citizens", the private interests owning the press, the profits of cinema studios concerned with citizens boycotting lewd movies and thus self-submitting to things like the Hays code (which was self-imposed by the "motion picture industry", and so on. If "free speech" is good, there's nothing wrong for asking for less or no censorship in the media, in social media, in the workplace, in arts, and other places...
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      It’s impossible to come up with a doctrine of free speech that allows for person A to say what they want, but does not allow person B to express outrage or opprobrium about what person A just said. It’s also well within person B’s rights of free association to not interact with person A because of what person A said. Of course a literal mob threatening violence is absolutely suppression of speech, very very few people want that. But people saying that they view you negatively because of what you’ve said is not a mob, and is in fact free speech in its own right.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >It’s impossible to come up with a doctrine of free speech that allows for person A to say what they want, but does not allow person B to express outrage or opprobrium about what person A just said. Nobody asked for that. B should be able to complain about what A said all they want. They just shouldn't be able to censor A. >It’s also well within person B’s rights of free association to not interact with person A because of what person A said. It is, though it can be a way to create extremist groups that don't interact and exchange ideas between them, and thus an echo bubble. >Of course a literal mob threatening violence is absolutely suppression of speech, very very few people want that. But people saying that they view you negatively because of what you’ve said is not a mob, and is in fact free speech in its own right. People saying you should "kill yourself" or "be fired" from your unrelated job because of what you said on your personal social media account, and managing to do it is ok? Or maybe it's just OK today, where it's just "bigots" that get this treatment? Because one can easily imagine a past America with social media (or a future America if the conservative tides change), where someone saying they're pro this or that progressive cause gets you mob-fired. In fact it's not hard to imagine, as it happened, even without social media: word of mouth in smaller communities, print media, etc were enough. Is that the precedence people doing that want to set, or are they just enjoy their temporary power are a lynch mob, like those that used to haze them back in the day?

ubernostrum 8y ago

The irony of unkind communication in a thread discussing new guidelines around kind communication is just painful. If I were the type of the anti-"diversity" person, my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech, by making certain types of speech out of bounds, and then assert that free speech is a good in itself -- one of the highest, if not the single highest such good -- and then rain down anger upon you for doing so. Further, I would retreat into weaponizing your own advocated guidelines against you, by asserting that you have uncharitably read things (such as accusation) into my statement when they were not present in the plain text, and then calling for you to be held accountable for the violation. Consider that that's what you are implicitly supporting when you suggest that a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind.

yebyen 8y ago
> a factual statement -- people either are not paying attention, or are being misinformed -- is unkind. That is bluntly unkind. You've taken an opinion and phrased it as "a factual statement." The "fact" you're positing is that there are two camps, those that don't understand because they are purely ignorant, and those that don't understand because they are intentionally fed false information. (How charitable!) What was the original "factual statement" again? I don't even know, because you've told "me" that whatever my opinion is, if it disagrees with yours, then I'm in one of two camps and they're both wrong. (NB: you didn't tell me anything, I'm just trying to engage you in this thought exercise that you seem to want to have.)
village-idiot 8y ago
I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth.
jowsie 8y ago
> my retort to this would be that you are obviously attempting to censor my free speech Do you not realise that free speech doesn't apply to whatever random online forum you decided to sign up too?
- coldtea 8y ago
  The idea that "free speech" == "only protection from state censorship" is an americanism, and not some universally accepted dictum. Historically it wasn't even always the state that suppressed free speech - it was often some church, mobs of "concerned citizens", the private interests owning the press, the profits of cinema studios concerned with citizens boycotting lewd movies and thus self-submitting to things like the Hays code (which was self-imposed by the "motion picture industry", and so on. If "free speech" is good, there's nothing wrong for asking for less or no censorship in the media, in social media, in the workplace, in arts, and other places...
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    It’s impossible to come up with a doctrine of free speech that allows for person A to say what they want, but does not allow person B to express outrage or opprobrium about what person A just said. It’s also well within person B’s rights of free association to not interact with person A because of what person A said. Of course a literal mob threatening violence is absolutely suppression of speech, very very few people want that. But people saying that they view you negatively because of what you’ve said is not a mob, and is in fact free speech in its own right.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >It’s impossible to come up with a doctrine of free speech that allows for person A to say what they want, but does not allow person B to express outrage or opprobrium about what person A just said. Nobody asked for that. B should be able to complain about what A said all they want. They just shouldn't be able to censor A. >It’s also well within person B’s rights of free association to not interact with person A because of what person A said. It is, though it can be a way to create extremist groups that don't interact and exchange ideas between them, and thus an echo bubble. >Of course a literal mob threatening violence is absolutely suppression of speech, very very few people want that. But people saying that they view you negatively because of what you’ve said is not a mob, and is in fact free speech in its own right. People saying you should "kill yourself" or "be fired" from your unrelated job because of what you said on your personal social media account, and managing to do it is ok? Or maybe it's just OK today, where it's just "bigots" that get this treatment? Because one can easily imagine a past America with social media (or a future America if the conservative tides change), where someone saying they're pro this or that progressive cause gets you mob-fired. In fact it's not hard to imagine, as it happened, even without social media: word of mouth in smaller communities, print media, etc were enough. Is that the precedence people doing that want to set, or are they just enjoy their temporary power are a lynch mob, like those that used to haze them back in the day?