4 ms·

If the 'target' is OK with a more-critical, even a hyperbolically- or teasingly- critical tone, why not allow it? Lots of big personalities carry on 'feuds' th

by gojomo 6y ago

If the 'target' is OK with a more-critical, even a hyperbolically- or teasingly- critical tone, why not allow it? Lots of big personalities carry on 'feuds' that are largely acts, to their mutual. The back-and-forth, even with campy insults, creates a framework for understanding the key points and evolution of the disagreement. Using more forceful, even facetiously disrespectful language expands the range of imagery/metaphor/emotion that can be deployed, often to humorous or insightful effect. It makes conversations, whether live in person or slowly over months of counter-performances, more memorable. If such talk rubs a few people the wrong way, out of some expansive concern for targets who do not themselves find the tone/language objectionable, I'd love to find a place where those people can be comfortable. But I don't want to sabotage the value of the free-to-all discourse for the much larger group of people who find vibrant, disputative, raw communication – even to the point of prickliness – more efficient and preferable. We're losing something if we require all speech to be sanitized for maximal gentility under new secular Sunday School rules.

Barrin92 6y ago
>If the 'target' is OK with a more-critical, even a hyperbolically- or teasingly- critical tone, why not allow it? if it's between two people who stand on the same level roughly as is in this case and it's all in good fun it's no issue. However in general this is a horrible idea, because someone with outsized influence can bully in ways that the victim will simply have to take if the imbalance is too large. Imagine Elon Musk gives a talk and absolutely drags someone with awful criticism, the person couldn't stand up against his twitter mob if they tried and would probably defer to keep their sanity even if they're right. Even in literal bullying this is kind of how the victim responds, just pretending it wasn't an issue as to not get bullied even more. So one has to be careful on this one.
- gojomo 6y ago
  Sure, but your Musk hypothetical isn't like this case. And, in cases of massive power/following imbalance like your hypothetical, it's unlikely any community CoC like this would even apply. The nasty person would just use any of their outlets that don't try to enforce a hyper-genteel environment.

by gojomo 6y ago

Barrin92 6y ago

>If the 'target' is OK with a more-critical, even a hyperbolically- or teasingly- critical tone, why not allow it? if it's between two people who stand on the same level roughly as is in this case and it's all in good fun it's no issue. However in general this is a horrible idea, because someone with outsized influence can bully in ways that the victim will simply have to take if the imbalance is too large. Imagine Elon Musk gives a talk and absolutely drags someone with awful criticism, the person couldn't stand up against his twitter mob if they tried and would probably defer to keep their sanity even if they're right. Even in literal bullying this is kind of how the victim responds, just pretending it wasn't an issue as to not get bullied even more. So one has to be careful on this one.

gojomo 6y ago
Sure, but your Musk hypothetical isn't like this case. And, in cases of massive power/following imbalance like your hypothetical, it's unlikely any community CoC like this would even apply. The nasty person would just use any of their outlets that don't try to enforce a hyper-genteel environment.