6 ms·

Oh, no animosity or hard feelings intended! To be clear I'm not trying to imply your participation is an attack, I just meant that in the general sense in the

Oh, no animosity or hard feelings intended! To be clear I'm not trying to imply your participation is an attack, I just meant that in the general sense in the modern world it's something we have to consider, people overreact to everything. I mean, you yourself think I am overreacting -- perhaps we all are, but whatever the case, it's definitely on many of our minds in many of our interactions, I think. After all, when I tried to discuss wealth and human merit, at least 3 people (me and you and the original reply) got into a discussion about something totally unrelated: uninclusive word choices. Maybe I should learn to say "people" instead of "men", maybe I should say "denylist" instead of "blacklist", maybe I should say "differently abled" instead of "disabled", but the list is very long, changes by the day, and is sometimes an extreme niche of offense that no-one is aware of. At the end of the day, I can try, but people will still get offended by something, so I think the friendlier, more productive option is to assume that people have good intentions, which is what I think my original comment was: You can be worthy without being wealthy.

alex_lav 3y ago
> After all, when I tried to discuss wealth and human merit, at least 3 people (me and you and the original reply) got into a discussion about something totally unrelated: uninclusive word choices. I suppose what I'm trying to impart, is that just because _you mean something_, doesn't mean that's what other people get, and saying "Well what they got isn't important because it's not what I meant" is just kind of...not really how communication with other people work? Previously you said you don't believe that saying things like "what's up guys" is a problem which, _you_ think that, but the people around you might not? And again, you're communicating with them, so demanding they accept your standard of communication is just kind of closed off. > Maybe I should learn to say "people" instead of "men", maybe I should say "denylist" instead of "blacklist", maybe I should say "differently abled" instead of "disabled", but the list is very long, changes by the day, and is sometimes an extreme niche of offense that no-one is aware of. Or maybe you can exist mostly-similarly to how you're currently existing, but instead of arguing with them and acting adversarial, simply acknowledging their point? This all happened as a result of a person saying "Women too". Would a "Totally." not have been a validating response? Does that type of behavior compromise your opinions too much? The common trend seems to be, if a person points out some kind of language issue like we're experiencing now, the person that made the original comment kind of flies off the hyperbole-handle and assumes they must correct every possibly contentious word, when really it seems way less complicated than that? > At the end of the day, I can try, but people will still get offended by something, so I think the friendlier, more productive option is to assume that people have good intentions, which is what I think my original comment was: I will turn this comment back on you, and say that the person that said "Women too" may have also been being friendly, and your response opened the less-productive negative-intentioned path. I appreciate the dialogue regardless.

alex_lav 3y ago

> After all, when I tried to discuss wealth and human merit, at least 3 people (me and you and the original reply) got into a discussion about something totally unrelated: uninclusive word choices. I suppose what I'm trying to impart, is that just because _you mean something_, doesn't mean that's what other people get, and saying "Well what they got isn't important because it's not what I meant" is just kind of...not really how communication with other people work? Previously you said you don't believe that saying things like "what's up guys" is a problem which, _you_ think that, but the people around you might not? And again, you're communicating with them, so demanding they accept your standard of communication is just kind of closed off. > Maybe I should learn to say "people" instead of "men", maybe I should say "denylist" instead of "blacklist", maybe I should say "differently abled" instead of "disabled", but the list is very long, changes by the day, and is sometimes an extreme niche of offense that no-one is aware of. Or maybe you can exist mostly-similarly to how you're currently existing, but instead of arguing with them and acting adversarial, simply acknowledging their point? This all happened as a result of a person saying "Women too". Would a "Totally." not have been a validating response? Does that type of behavior compromise your opinions too much? The common trend seems to be, if a person points out some kind of language issue like we're experiencing now, the person that made the original comment kind of flies off the hyperbole-handle and assumes they must correct every possibly contentious word, when really it seems way less complicated than that? > At the end of the day, I can try, but people will still get offended by something, so I think the friendlier, more productive option is to assume that people have good intentions, which is what I think my original comment was: I will turn this comment back on you, and say that the person that said "Women too" may have also been being friendly, and your response opened the less-productive negative-intentioned path. I appreciate the dialogue regardless.