4 ms·

I ordinarily do avoid spouting off opinions when I should be listening. Also, most feminists I talk to are considerate and do not bully people in this way. Stil

I ordinarily do avoid spouting off opinions when I should be listening. Also, most feminists I talk to are considerate and do not bully people in this way. Still, it is important to have an open dialogue, and this article is advocating for that, so I felt the need to express my agreement.

wpietri 12y ago
Thanks. I too am in favor of open dialogue, but with a couple exceptions. These exceptions really bug me, because by masquerading as dialogue they reduce the opportunity for real dialoue. One is when open dialogue is used as a cloak for social control. The extreme example here is the Westboro Baptist Church, which pickets with signs that say, "God Hates Fags". A historical example is all the people picketing during school integration in the US. But there are a zillion subtle examples where people today, often unconsciously, say and do things that act to maintain historical imbalances. Another is when discussion participants aren't acting responsibly. I forever see dudes sea-lioning their way into some advanced discussion on feminism, saying ignorant and/or harmful things, and then getting upset when they're called out. Real dialogue requires new participants to approach with humility and respect. Nobody expects it to be ok to for somebody off the street to barge into a graduate physics seminar and start opining. Those people will promptly get bounced, and surely go away complaining. But topics like feminism and race relations also have long histories. People jumping in to serious discussions should know something; they are not entitled to an on-the-spot education that stops the advanced discussion from progressing. I'd also add that as I have come to better understand the experience of other people, I'm a lot more forgiving of possibly misdirected anger from marginalized people. A (white) sysadmin pal has a permanent, visceral dislike of cops because he was once assaulted by a cop who mistook him for somebody who had just shot a brother officer. Intellectually he knows that most cops are fine, but if somebody puts you in the ER, intellect only takes you so far. He just now doesn't trust cops in general; each individual officer has to demonstrate that they are safe before he feels safe. Knowing how much bullshit has been perpetrated by people who look like me, I just accept that some people are going to initially see me as a probable threat. I am just always going to be Schrodinger's rapist [1] to a lot of women. I'm going to be Schrodinger's racist to a lot of black people. So if in a discussion on sensitive topics I am mistaken for an asshole, I try to let that slide. Heck, they could be right. And if not, their reaction to me may be wrong, but I think it's understandably and forgivably wrong. [1] http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/ http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-sch... P.S. I am up against my noprocrast limit, but I'll try to come back this evening.
- evincarofautumn 12y ago
  I understand all your points and they largely reflect my internal attitudes. You can’t have known that, so don’t fret about evangelising a bit. I just want to be considerate of people, and have them reciprocate. That is what I mean by honest, open dialogue.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Thanks. That's exactly what I want, too. Thanks for being such a good demonstrator of it.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  There is no substantive difference between "sea lioning" and basic conflict resolution tactics, except that with the former, you assume bad faith on the part of your interlocutor.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Sea-lioning is inserting yourself into a conversation where you are not wanted: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ It is a way of creating conflict, not resolving it.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      People who use this term often "don't want" any opinion that conflicts with their own.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        As far as I can tell, what they don't want is to have to deal with randoms who act entitled to other people's time. There are an awful lot of people who appear to think they have the right to be listened to.
        12y ago
Torgo 12y ago
There could not be a more stark difference between feminists I know in person and some of the cranks that are popular online. At least part of the problem is that social media selects for bombast. What horrifies me is that this mode of thinking and speaking is leaking into real world behavior.

wpietri 12y ago

Thanks. I too am in favor of open dialogue, but with a couple exceptions. These exceptions really bug me, because by masquerading as dialogue they reduce the opportunity for real dialoue. One is when open dialogue is used as a cloak for social control. The extreme example here is the Westboro Baptist Church, which pickets with signs that say, "God Hates Fags". A historical example is all the people picketing during school integration in the US. But there are a zillion subtle examples where people today, often unconsciously, say and do things that act to maintain historical imbalances. Another is when discussion participants aren't acting responsibly. I forever see dudes sea-lioning their way into some advanced discussion on feminism, saying ignorant and/or harmful things, and then getting upset when they're called out. Real dialogue requires new participants to approach with humility and respect. Nobody expects it to be ok to for somebody off the street to barge into a graduate physics seminar and start opining. Those people will promptly get bounced, and surely go away complaining. But topics like feminism and race relations also have long histories. People jumping in to serious discussions should know something; they are not entitled to an on-the-spot education that stops the advanced discussion from progressing. I'd also add that as I have come to better understand the experience of other people, I'm a lot more forgiving of possibly misdirected anger from marginalized people. A (white) sysadmin pal has a permanent, visceral dislike of cops because he was once assaulted by a cop who mistook him for somebody who had just shot a brother officer. Intellectually he knows that most cops are fine, but if somebody puts you in the ER, intellect only takes you so far. He just now doesn't trust cops in general; each individual officer has to demonstrate that they are safe before he feels safe. Knowing how much bullshit has been perpetrated by people who look like me, I just accept that some people are going to initially see me as a probable threat. I am just always going to be Schrodinger's rapist [1] to a lot of women. I'm going to be Schrodinger's racist to a lot of black people. So if in a discussion on sensitive topics I am mistaken for an asshole, I try to let that slide. Heck, they could be right. And if not, their reaction to me may be wrong, but I think it's understandably and forgivably wrong. [1] http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/ http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-sch... P.S. I am up against my noprocrast limit, but I'll try to come back this evening.

evincarofautumn 12y ago
I understand all your points and they largely reflect my internal attitudes. You can’t have known that, so don’t fret about evangelising a bit. I just want to be considerate of people, and have them reciprocate. That is what I mean by honest, open dialogue.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Thanks. That's exactly what I want, too. Thanks for being such a good demonstrator of it.
Karunamon 12y ago
There is no substantive difference between "sea lioning" and basic conflict resolution tactics, except that with the former, you assume bad faith on the part of your interlocutor.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Sea-lioning is inserting yourself into a conversation where you are not wanted: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ It is a way of creating conflict, not resolving it.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    People who use this term often "don't want" any opinion that conflicts with their own.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      As far as I can tell, what they don't want is to have to deal with randoms who act entitled to other people's time. There are an awful lot of people who appear to think they have the right to be listened to.
      - 12y ago

Torgo 12y ago

There could not be a more stark difference between feminists I know in person and some of the cranks that are popular online. At least part of the problem is that social media selects for bombast. What horrifies me is that this mode of thinking and speaking is leaking into real world behavior.