4 ms·

You ask yourself what you have done wrong to upset that person. Because it's the only thing you can control. If you start canceling, you will be cancelled. L

You ask yourself what you have done wrong to upset that person. Because it's the only thing you can control. If you start canceling, you will be cancelled. Look where this brought Mozilla... Do you still trust them? Do people still trust them? They are on the verge of oblivion, I only use Firefox because I do not want to live in a browser mono culture. But I've stopped my donations to Mozilla years ago.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> You ask yourself what you have done wrong to upset that person. Some people seem to just inherently be a bit nasty, even if it’s the very first time you interact with them and so nothing you’ve done at all.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Some people seem to just inherently be a bit nasty Those people could think the same thing about you. "amount of nastyness" it's not an internationally recognized standard unit of measure and it depends a lot on culture, status, social class, and a lot of other more subtle things. You can't even imagine how many stereotypes on Italians I have to endure in a normal, professional, conversation with North Americans, who don't even notice that they are doing it. And yet I don't get defensive all the times.
  - jamespo 4y ago
    yeh, it's not all about you fella
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    If 90% of the community think you’re a jerk then it’s probably you that’s the jerk.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      Where's the vote? > If 90% of the community think you’re a jerk then it’s probably you that’s the jerk. Or it's a community of Jerks. Proud boys think I am a jerk, for sure.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > Or it's a community of Jerks. If you think they’re jerks then don’t join in. If they think you’re a jerk they won’t want you to join in. It’s not the mystery you’re making it out to be. If many people tell you that by their norms you’re rude then by definition you’re rude as that’s the definition of rude - not meeting social norms for interaction in a given situation which is causing people to be upset. If you don’t understand their norms or why they’re upset, that’s your issue to work on not theirs. > Proud boys think I am a jerk, for sure. Yeah so you probably wouldn’t be welcome at a Proud Boys meeting. That’s fine. Did you think this was a ‘gotcha’? You’re arguing against your own position!
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > If you think they’re jerks then don’t join in. You don't know until you don't know. > If they think you’re a jerk they won’t want you to join in. Which is why Mozilla as a brand is as toxic as the inside of Chernobyl reactor core. > You’re arguing against your own position! Not really. I'm arguing against the hypocrisy of "openess". Proud boys say they are for free speech, but then, as you correctly state, they wouldn't let me speak at one of their rallies. Mozilla says they are open, but then their bans are written by someone who's in love with medieval torture. The only missing bit of fun in their e-mail is being forced to sleep in an iron maiden.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > I'm arguing against the hypocrisy of "openess". Open to people who aren’t jerks. Again I don’t think that’s a mystery - it’s implicit in any community and is even made explicit through their CoC if you can’t judge social norms yourself.
bayindirh 4y ago
> You ask yourself what you have done wrong to upset that person. Are you perfectly sure that people always start from "neutral" or "positive" attitude, even when contacted for the first time? I have been rudely dismissed more than once from some members of some communities over the years, even with very neutral mails. I'm personally very against loaded (in tone) emails, and can be considered even a pacifist, but being polite, kind and open never guarantees people won't yell at you at first contact.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Are you perfectly sure that people always start from "neutral" or "positive" attitude, even when contacted for the first time? Are you sure they don't? And how do you know? You can only know if you do it. That's the point. > but being polite, kind and open never guarantees people won't yell at you at first contact. Because that's not enough. You have to be understanding too and know when you are wrong too and when other people are right. Their behaviour is a completely different matter, until it is not borderline criminal, it should be considered as an expression of their feelings. People have them, not all of us are soulless robots like me. My doctor shouting to my face to take the f*king medicine, is probably trying to help me. Me doctor telling me kind words, knowing very well my lazy ass, is probably not giving a flying f*ck about me.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    > Are you sure they don't? I've seen conversations with or without me on either side of the spectrum, so it's not a given. > And how do you know? By writing neutral, simple, kind e-mails and messages to people. > You have to be understanding too and know when you are wrong too and when other people are right. Asking something you don't know to someone you never contacted before cannot contain the points you mentioned. If the conversations are ongoing, then things are different. It's important to be able to accept you're wrong and do it humbly. That's also very correct, but sending an email in the tone of "Hello, I'm wondering about this, can anybody point to me to the right direction, because I've failed to achieve it myself." Has neither right, nor wrong in it. Also, it can't contain anything more than appreciation of others time (and you show it by not spamming the person or the list). > Their behaviour is a completely different matter, until it is not borderline criminal, it should be considered as an expression of their feelings. Borderline criminality is not a defined international standard and can‘t be put on a scale homogenized throughout all cultures and conversation styles. It's also important to note that while the sending party is not entitled to replying party's kindness, replying party is not entitled to be tolerated for its tone of choice. This is why we have politeness and kindness as an international standard and aspired underpinning of conversations throughout this planet. One can show their emotions perfectly well without yelling or being rude, too, if wishes to chose that way. > My doctor shouting to my face to take the f*king medicine, is probably trying to help me. Then you should first ask yourself what you have done to your doctor to deserve this reaction, maybe? > Me doctor telling me kind words, knowing very well my lazy ass, is probably not giving a flying f*ck about me. No. Some people say strong words kindly. They can only tell "You'll just die if you continue doing this." with a calm tone, and you may lose sleep over it for a month. The choice is, of course, yours. So, as a result, we come to the conclusion of "If both parties act reasonably, then kindness and politeness is a natural outcome". Then as a corollary, we can ask that "If everyone behaving reasonably, why at least one of the parties is not polite?"

chrisseaton 4y ago

> You ask yourself what you have done wrong to upset that person. Some people seem to just inherently be a bit nasty, even if it’s the very first time you interact with them and so nothing you’ve done at all.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Some people seem to just inherently be a bit nasty Those people could think the same thing about you. "amount of nastyness" it's not an internationally recognized standard unit of measure and it depends a lot on culture, status, social class, and a lot of other more subtle things. You can't even imagine how many stereotypes on Italians I have to endure in a normal, professional, conversation with North Americans, who don't even notice that they are doing it. And yet I don't get defensive all the times.
- jamespo 4y ago
  yeh, it's not all about you fella
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  If 90% of the community think you’re a jerk then it’s probably you that’s the jerk.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    Where's the vote? > If 90% of the community think you’re a jerk then it’s probably you that’s the jerk. Or it's a community of Jerks. Proud boys think I am a jerk, for sure.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > Or it's a community of Jerks. If you think they’re jerks then don’t join in. If they think you’re a jerk they won’t want you to join in. It’s not the mystery you’re making it out to be. If many people tell you that by their norms you’re rude then by definition you’re rude as that’s the definition of rude - not meeting social norms for interaction in a given situation which is causing people to be upset. If you don’t understand their norms or why they’re upset, that’s your issue to work on not theirs. > Proud boys think I am a jerk, for sure. Yeah so you probably wouldn’t be welcome at a Proud Boys meeting. That’s fine. Did you think this was a ‘gotcha’? You’re arguing against your own position!
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > If you think they’re jerks then don’t join in. You don't know until you don't know. > If they think you’re a jerk they won’t want you to join in. Which is why Mozilla as a brand is as toxic as the inside of Chernobyl reactor core. > You’re arguing against your own position! Not really. I'm arguing against the hypocrisy of "openess". Proud boys say they are for free speech, but then, as you correctly state, they wouldn't let me speak at one of their rallies. Mozilla says they are open, but then their bans are written by someone who's in love with medieval torture. The only missing bit of fun in their e-mail is being forced to sleep in an iron maiden.
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > I'm arguing against the hypocrisy of "openess". Open to people who aren’t jerks. Again I don’t think that’s a mystery - it’s implicit in any community and is even made explicit through their CoC if you can’t judge social norms yourself.

bayindirh 4y ago

> You ask yourself what you have done wrong to upset that person. Are you perfectly sure that people always start from "neutral" or "positive" attitude, even when contacted for the first time? I have been rudely dismissed more than once from some members of some communities over the years, even with very neutral mails. I'm personally very against loaded (in tone) emails, and can be considered even a pacifist, but being polite, kind and open never guarantees people won't yell at you at first contact.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Are you perfectly sure that people always start from "neutral" or "positive" attitude, even when contacted for the first time? Are you sure they don't? And how do you know? You can only know if you do it. That's the point. > but being polite, kind and open never guarantees people won't yell at you at first contact. Because that's not enough. You have to be understanding too and know when you are wrong too and when other people are right. Their behaviour is a completely different matter, until it is not borderline criminal, it should be considered as an expression of their feelings. People have them, not all of us are soulless robots like me. My doctor shouting to my face to take the f*king medicine, is probably trying to help me. Me doctor telling me kind words, knowing very well my lazy ass, is probably not giving a flying f*ck about me.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  > Are you sure they don't? I've seen conversations with or without me on either side of the spectrum, so it's not a given. > And how do you know? By writing neutral, simple, kind e-mails and messages to people. > You have to be understanding too and know when you are wrong too and when other people are right. Asking something you don't know to someone you never contacted before cannot contain the points you mentioned. If the conversations are ongoing, then things are different. It's important to be able to accept you're wrong and do it humbly. That's also very correct, but sending an email in the tone of "Hello, I'm wondering about this, can anybody point to me to the right direction, because I've failed to achieve it myself." Has neither right, nor wrong in it. Also, it can't contain anything more than appreciation of others time (and you show it by not spamming the person or the list). > Their behaviour is a completely different matter, until it is not borderline criminal, it should be considered as an expression of their feelings. Borderline criminality is not a defined international standard and can‘t be put on a scale homogenized throughout all cultures and conversation styles. It's also important to note that while the sending party is not entitled to replying party's kindness, replying party is not entitled to be tolerated for its tone of choice. This is why we have politeness and kindness as an international standard and aspired underpinning of conversations throughout this planet. One can show their emotions perfectly well without yelling or being rude, too, if wishes to chose that way. > My doctor shouting to my face to take the f*king medicine, is probably trying to help me. Then you should first ask yourself what you have done to your doctor to deserve this reaction, maybe? > Me doctor telling me kind words, knowing very well my lazy ass, is probably not giving a flying f*ck about me. No. Some people say strong words kindly. They can only tell "You'll just die if you continue doing this." with a calm tone, and you may lose sleep over it for a month. The choice is, of course, yours. So, as a result, we come to the conclusion of "If both parties act reasonably, then kindness and politeness is a natural outcome". Then as a corollary, we can ask that "If everyone behaving reasonably, why at least one of the parties is not polite?"