3 ms·

Again, it would be fun if I never had to deal with people implying my views implied I was actually a bad person, but it's not the case. I also see this in lots

Again, it would be fun if I never had to deal with people implying my views implied I was actually a bad person, but it's not the case. I also see this in lots of conversations that aren't political, so I think it's more of an online discourse thing. People get nasty to each other online. > This can mean that a right leaning person at worst can feel like a prick. But a left leaning person can feel like a nag. What I'm trying to tell you is, these are the same thing wrapped up packaged with different aesthetics. This brush is just too darn broad. If you're gunnuh judge by flame wars, everyone is gunnuh come out smelling like poo.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>This brush is just too darn broad.If you're gunnuh judge by flame wars, everyone is gunnuh come out smelling like poo. I did warn beforhand. I agree judging an entire political paradigm based on its worst actors is pretty much the worst way to approach said paradigms. But at the same time that is unfortunately becoming more and more commonplace. I'd need much more than 2 paragraphs if we want to fully dive into the psychology of the internet, anonymity, negativity bias, and modern discourse. Everyone does indeed smell like poo here, but the kinds of comments that lead to flame wars are rarely the perfectly civil technical answers. >I also see this in lots of conversations that aren't political, so I think it's more of an online discourse thing. People get nasty to each other online. It can certainly happen in places like media, yes. But oftentimes it comes from applying some political topic to what seems tame on the outside. That's how we got here, since talking about Walkability lead to talking about environmentalism. And next thing we know we have a person talking about slashing tires because a single commenter mentioned how they would have preferred using a car to carry groceries after their walk.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > I did warn beforhand. I agree judging an entire political paradigm based on its worst actors is pretty much the worst way to approach said paradigms. Then don't do that. One person got frustrated and said something about slashing tires (and was immediately corrected by another urbanist). Don't turn that into a mountain.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    With all due respect, I feel you started the molehill by replying to someone who was (also) frustrated by getting a reply about someone slashing their tires because of a small life choice (one that they DIDN'T do, in this instance. Just wished they could in the future). I just wanted to touch into the why's and hows of the frustration. It feels like similar results, but had different causes. If you aren't interested, I apologize.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      Well, from my perspective, I was trying to say it was a mole hill, and you were saying, from this angle it looks like a mountain. I think maybe I didn't communicate tone well enough in my previous comment, I don't mean it to come off as berating you to stop or something. I was saying that, if you understand that painting with a broad brush doesn't work, I'm confused why I see a brush in your hand.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        Lemme ask you this. Do you not think it's likely, if left wing people changed the language they used or otherwise addressed these reasons you highlighted (or likewise if right wing people did the equivalent), that because there was still profound polarization and disagreement, people would kinda find other things to complain about? If you accept that premise, then does it really matter what things the people who you disagree with do that grind your gears and what it is you find grating about them? Isn't it more important to try and have a productive dialog, despite finding the people you disagree with grating? I think almost always when there is something about the way someone expressed themselves that bothers you, it's more a reflection on your preferences than anything else, and it's best to set it aside and try to hear them out anyway. There's no obligation to do so, I'm just suggesting it's the pragmatic and productive thing to do.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>This brush is just too darn broad.If you're gunnuh judge by flame wars, everyone is gunnuh come out smelling like poo. I did warn beforhand. I agree judging an entire political paradigm based on its worst actors is pretty much the worst way to approach said paradigms. But at the same time that is unfortunately becoming more and more commonplace. I'd need much more than 2 paragraphs if we want to fully dive into the psychology of the internet, anonymity, negativity bias, and modern discourse. Everyone does indeed smell like poo here, but the kinds of comments that lead to flame wars are rarely the perfectly civil technical answers. >I also see this in lots of conversations that aren't political, so I think it's more of an online discourse thing. People get nasty to each other online. It can certainly happen in places like media, yes. But oftentimes it comes from applying some political topic to what seems tame on the outside. That's how we got here, since talking about Walkability lead to talking about environmentalism. And next thing we know we have a person talking about slashing tires because a single commenter mentioned how they would have preferred using a car to carry groceries after their walk.

maxbond 3y ago
> I did warn beforhand. I agree judging an entire political paradigm based on its worst actors is pretty much the worst way to approach said paradigms. Then don't do that. One person got frustrated and said something about slashing tires (and was immediately corrected by another urbanist). Don't turn that into a mountain.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  With all due respect, I feel you started the molehill by replying to someone who was (also) frustrated by getting a reply about someone slashing their tires because of a small life choice (one that they DIDN'T do, in this instance. Just wished they could in the future). I just wanted to touch into the why's and hows of the frustration. It feels like similar results, but had different causes. If you aren't interested, I apologize.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Well, from my perspective, I was trying to say it was a mole hill, and you were saying, from this angle it looks like a mountain. I think maybe I didn't communicate tone well enough in my previous comment, I don't mean it to come off as berating you to stop or something. I was saying that, if you understand that painting with a broad brush doesn't work, I'm confused why I see a brush in your hand.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      Lemme ask you this. Do you not think it's likely, if left wing people changed the language they used or otherwise addressed these reasons you highlighted (or likewise if right wing people did the equivalent), that because there was still profound polarization and disagreement, people would kinda find other things to complain about? If you accept that premise, then does it really matter what things the people who you disagree with do that grind your gears and what it is you find grating about them? Isn't it more important to try and have a productive dialog, despite finding the people you disagree with grating? I think almost always when there is something about the way someone expressed themselves that bothers you, it's more a reflection on your preferences than anything else, and it's best to set it aside and try to hear them out anyway. There's no obligation to do so, I'm just suggesting it's the pragmatic and productive thing to do.