posted
As writers, we pretend to know the power of words. They are our playthings, and with them we create worlds and voices, characters and crisis.
Yet somehow, I've noticed, we don't notice that the words we say can hurt people.
I apologize if my words have hurt feelings, and hope that as we work in this community to learn to control words, we learn to control our own as well.
The question I want to bring up for discussion, is freedom of speech, versus being polite. And as writers, what is our responsibility towards reporting truths with civility?
posted
* If something said has 18 meanings that are positive and 1 meaning that is negative, the recipient will always interpret it the negative way first.
* If there is no possible way you will be misunderstood, someone will invent one.
* Idiot-proofing your words just challenges God to make a better idiot.
* You will never write or say something that will please everyone. If you're lucky, what you wrote or said won't offend a majority of your target audience alone.
* Then again, there's always that creepy fan that clings to your every word as though it's the gospel, even when those words spell out "RESTRAINING ORDER".
quote:And as writers, what is our responsibility towards reporting truths with civility?
As writers, none whatsoever. As a writer, you can write whatever you darn well please*. That's what freedom of speech entitles you to. Just be prepared to face the consequences of those that choose to employ their OWN freedom of speech to contradict you.
(* I'm sure a lawyer will disagree with this comment.)
posted
More than words, and like with creative writing, also a narrative voice (especially grammatical person), sytnax, diction, vocabulary, tenor, tone, and relational standing have power to stimulate emotions. Call it rhetoric: figures of speech, schemes, and tropes with the power to persuade.
Writing and online discussion venues only have the communication potentials of written word. In person, there's gestures and expressions and tone of voice cues that convey meaning written word doesn't. Nonverbal and tonal cues represent the majority of in-person communication. According to Mehrabian's communication study, humans communicate in-person with 7% words, 38% tone, 55% body language. 93% of everyday communication techniques are not available in written word, excepting, of course, describing tone and body language.
Any given person's reading vocabulary is typically larger than their writing vocabulary. A speaking vocabulary is typically larger than a reading or writing vocabulary, but not very large in everyday use.
posted
I never saw the notes you are talking about, but thought I would put my two cents in.
With Freedom of speech, there are two things that is always forgotten.
1 ) Freedom of speech is not a freedom to be heard (also known as a freedom to be avoided or ignored).
and
2 ) You must be willing to suffer the consequences of the use of one's freedom of speech (Also known as freedom to be punished, ignored, or avoided)
AS to words on these and other boards, No one (or few), knows me personally. Because they don't know me, any comments made to me is to my words, not me personally. When someone says something that could be offensive, I know it is not really to or about me. I don't take it personally. For all they know, they could very well be right........
quote:The question I want to bring up for discussion, is freedom of speech, versus being polite. And as writers, what is our responsibility towards reporting truths with civility?
As a writer I pick my audience first, then the reaction I want them to have, then I write. Civility is just another tool in the rhetoric kit.
To look at your question from a different angle: What is the impact of being chided when I didn't expect it?
If I feel I was diligent, wording a communication diplomatically, then I will analyse my communication: Was it clear? If not, I'll try and tidy it up.
If I feel I was clear though and the respondent has ignored my argument, instead resorting to low blows and personal abuse, I stop caring and no longer make observations. After all, if the audience doesn't want my input, then I've freed up a lot of time in writing it or even thinking about it. Time is not free.
And with that I think is the risk inherent when debate is allowed to become unreasonable - reasonable people stop being involved.
posted
I think of freedom of speech and civility as existing in two separate realms. Freedom of speech is a political issue; politeness, a cultural one.
So, to make an meaningful answer, I would have to reframe your dichotomy as desire to express ourselves vs. civility. To that, I say, there's usually always a way to express oneself with civility. Should one? Yes, one should try.
As for our responsibilities as writers, it really depends on the context. If you're critting someone's piece, well, it would be a responsible thing to do to try to do so civilly. But you don't have to give up truth. If you're a journalist, truth should probably trump politeness.
posted
In terms of crits, I think we are here to be honest to each other. If someone being honest about your work offends or upsets you, then I think you shouldn't post stuff here; you should show it to your Mum and Dad so they can pat you on the back and tell how wonderful it is.
If something is poorly written, I will not say that. I will point out the main faults and identify that these are common mistakes when learning to write--mistakes we all made/make. I would hope, therefore, to encourage the writer to accept the criticism of his work and move on and grow.
Some comments you will disagree with, and may seem unfair or too picky, and the intent may seem to be to annoy you, but in all liklihood they were honest comment designed to help you grow. Just ignore them if you disagree with them.
The more honest someone is about your work, the easier it is for you to see how to improve it.
Honesty doesn't mean being rude. Saying that this bit wasn't interesting isn't being rude, it is highlighting that at that point your interest waivered. Saying the story was 'crap' is bing rude, because it is antagonistic.
[This message has been edited by skadder (edited May 07, 2009).]
posted
Whatever you say will offend some people--people can be incredibly sensitive in certain areas of their life, depending on the emotional investment they have made in it. Forums, like this one, can encourage some people to over-analyse what is being said, as the other usual non-verbal clues involved in communication are missing.
That said, some people try and find stuff to be offended by as it serves thier purposes to be seen as the offended party and helps them achieve their goals--whatever they may be.
When you encounter such a person, it is best to withdraw as you will make no headway, except by appeasment (apologising for your percieved offence), as they will not listen to reason. It's a facet of a personality disorder and is is more common than people think.
[This message has been edited by skadder (edited May 07, 2009).]
posted
Free speech is as much an obligation and responsibility as it is a right. As an obligation, preserving the right by exercising responsible speech keeps the free expression of ideas vigorous. The responsibility to exercise discretion in free spech preserves the right by expressing no offense, harm, or hate. Hiding behind the right as a means to exact retribution, cause hardship, express hate, self-promote at the expense of others' sensibilities, or inflict harm challenges and impedes everyone's rights.
There is no unfettered right to utter offensive, harmful, hurtful speech. No right to shout "Fire" in a crowded room when there is no fire. No unfettered right to harrass, intimidate, or demean. No right to incite violence.
A free society has an obligation to protect and encourage free speech, but also has an obligation to protect the society and its individuals from offense, harm, and hate. Censorship's ideal role in free speech protects impressionable minds from harmful expression. Stifling offensive, harmful, hateful speech in a free society ideally prevents subjecting ideas to hate, prejudicial disregard, and bigotry and yet allows for a free and unfettered expression of ideas.
"Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited May 07, 2009).]
posted
My own personal ethics dictitate that I try to be polite as often as I possibly can. Yes, I probably have the legal right to say about anything I like so long as it does not materially harm someone (defamation, harassment, yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.), but I try to communicate in ways that effectively promote dialogue. Many times I find that people who are habitually rude are in constant broadcast mode, and have no desire for genuine interaction.
As far as criticism, I try to use the "LCS" model (likes, concerns, suggestions). I try to start by identifying the good, then where things could be stronger, and lastly, any ideas for improvement. It's just something a boss of mine once made us do in meetings, and it's kind of stuck with me.
posted
I have learned it is better to be kind, than to be right. At least when it comes to the words I speak.
In writing, you can only speak your own truth. Everyone will filter what they read through the lens of their own personal experience, and you have no way of predicting how your words will sound to others. Be true to your own vision, and you will have satisfied at least one person.
posted
My dad used to tell us that everything we say should go through three gates before we can say it.
The gates were
1--is it true?
2--is it necessary?
3--is it kind?
If it can't go through all three gates, or if we can't find a way to help it through all three gates, then it shouldn't be said. And sometimes the third gate is the hardest one to get it through.
As Randy Pausch said in THE LAST LECTURE, as he noticed the way the doctor was answering their questions about his terminal cancer
quote:I wished every medical student considering oncology could see what I was seeing. I watched Dr. Wolff use semantics to phrase whatever he could in a positive light. When we asked, "How long before I die?" he answered, "You probably have three to six months of good health." That reminded me of my time at Disney. Ask Disney World workers: "What time does the park close?" They're supposed to answer: "The park is open until 8 p.m."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
