quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Eta: You know, it's not fair of me to pick on you. I do have a newfound understanding for people aging poorly. We ought to allow you to do it more gracefully.
posted
In the interest of "Facilitating Communication," could Katharina and Orincoro stop addressing each other for the time being?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not naming any names... but I would like to note as a general rule of thumb that deliberate, point blank insults are the sort of thing that is lowering the overall quality of the forum. Doing so in a thread where someone is desperately trying maintain a civil atmosphere is particularly less than cool.
There is another forum I go to where swearing and (at least good natured) insults are not merely tolerated but part of the overall culture. When I'm in the mood for that, I go there instead of here. At least I used to. Over the past year it's reached the point where it doesn't matter, but I don't think there's any particular reason for it HAS to stay that way. A wide variety of forum atmospheres is better than a single homogenous internet-wide 4chan.
(Edit: posted before JanitorBlade showed up, not sure if it matters)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: In the interest of "Facilitating Communication," could Katharina and Orincoro stop addressing each other for the time being?
(JanitorBlade: Sorry Orincoro, I debated leaving your post up after responding to it, but it's not going to serve any positive purpose. If you feel wronged don't hesitate to PM me.)
++Man, it's dark in here. (vague swooshing noise can be heard) ++"Where are you!" (rustling leaves can be heard) ++Yoohoo, Honey, it's... BOINK!
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: In the interest of "Facilitating Communication," could Katharina and Orincoro stop addressing each other for the time being?
posted
Despite his parental role, I don't think JanitorBlade has the overriding ability to invite you to the birthday party.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm not referencing you directly i'm not referencing you directly you can't tell mom i'm not referencing you directly
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: Thank you for not addressing katharina directly. Could you also please not talk about her either? TIA.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, or anyone else - could you please talk more about the phenomenon of assuming the intructor role in a seminar-type discussion?
What you said resonated with me greatly, since I think I do it a lot in real life.
1) Is it wrong? I want to question whether or not it is rude. For instance, If I take that role, my friends may happily take the non-instructor role by engaging in a bit of humility. I don't intend to be condescending, and I know that I will facilitate discussion better than my peers. It definitely doesn't mean I have more to contribute, but, yea, I know that the conversation wouldn't have gotten off the ground without me. I think they know that too.
2)Assuming you're right and it IS wrong - I feel incredibly frustrated. I feel like I'm really good at facilitating certain types of conversation that other people aren't necessarily so good at. Some of the most intimate and meaningful conversations come out from places where only I am willing to step up.
What's the alternative? Is it that I conduct conversations with extreme sensitivity? (I'm grateful to Raymond for opening the forum for THIS conversation, because I learned a lot from this meta-analysis). Or do I stop altogether?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any time the discussion turns to something that one or more poster has integrated into their sense of self-worth and wellbeing, there is going to be a fight.
As someone with a naturally thin skin, I find that trying to integrate "I am a person who appreciates criticism of her ideas" as part of my identity helps. Then when someone attacks another part of my identity, I can't respond with kneejerk defensiveness without feeling like I'm attacking myself.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like this conversation has mostly wound down. Which is all right, I guess. But I was hoping for a little more dialogue with rivka and/or kat and/or anyone else who feels similarly about the "multiple conflicting mutually exclusive truths" thing. Did my last post clarify anything? Do you find talking to a person who you know things that way that you disagree with inherently offensive or frustrating?
My last question for kat, Armoth pretty much asked: is there any way for one person to communicate to another: "You're doing something that I find harmful/annoying/hostility-inducing/whatever. Could you please stop?" that you don't consider rude?
(Armoth was asking specifically about the "lecturing" tone, but I've seen people attempt to say basically the same things in a variety of manners that seemed uniformly unappreciated.)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I've noticed is that, in general, a scientific worldview starts with a null assumption and requires evidence, while a religious worldview starts with very specific, often unassailable assumptions, and ignores or attempts to understand within that view any conflicting evidence.
So if people are accostomed to the idea that their beliefs are just right, because they are - end of story, it can cause a fundamental friction in discussions as one side tries to establish what is and is not, and the other side sticks to their guns and wonders when the wrong people will decide to agree.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thinking dividing worldviews up into "scientific" and "religious" a) isn't necessarily realistic. b) bringing up religion and/or politics immediately starts turning people (of any given sect/worldview) away from thinking rationally and towards thinking in a more primitive "us vs them" state. You can train yourself away from this but the impulse is still there.
I do think there's interesting things to delve into exploring that dichotomy (or lack thereof) but in this particular thread I'm trying to find reasons for people to agree with each other, and framing things along opposing worldviews makes that harder, not easier.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Did my last post clarify anything?
Not really. I believe I understood the meat of your clarification from your earlier posts; I still disagree, and I rarely find it fruitful to continue at that point. And MC's deliberate misread and mis-statement of what was probably the least important bit of my post made me even less interested in continuing the conversation. (This, BTW, is actually a key aspect of the issue this topic is about: even if two people who are having a conversation are both doing so in good faith, sniping from bystanders can make that very difficult. I am as guilty of this offense as well.)
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Do you find talking to a person who you know things that way that you disagree with inherently offensive or frustrating?
Not necessarily, but it does tend to be limiting. And sometimes there are assumptions on one side -- or both -- that are quite frustrating.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: bringing up religion and/or politics immediately starts turning people (of any given sect/worldview) away from thinking rationally and towards thinking in a more primitive "us vs them" state. ...I'm trying to find reasons for people to agree with each other, and framing things along opposing worldviews makes that harder, not easier.
posted
rivka: I'm sniping? I don't think my tone was any harsher than yours or Kat's criticisms.
Besides, it's funny when Ray says that it's not possible for two people to have different points and they both be right, and both you and Kat say, "Sorry, but you're not right."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: [qb] Kat, or anyone else - could you please talk more about the phenomenon of assuming the instructor role in a seminar-type discussion?
What you said resonated with me greatly, since I think I do it a lot in real life.
Seeing as it is an OSC board and his characters do this ALL THE TIME, I suspect most of us have done it or do it.
quote: 1) Is it wrong? I want to question whether or not it is rude. For instance, If I take that role, my friends may happily take the non-instructor role by engaging in a bit of humility. I don't intend to be condescending, and I know that I will facilitate discussion better than my peers. It definitely doesn't mean I have more to contribute, but, yea, I know that the conversation wouldn't have gotten off the ground without me. I think they know that too.
It isn't wrong, if you get consent. In other words, it is not a polite or respectful thing to do unless you have already been given that role from the people you are talking to.
So, it isn't wrong when that role has been given to you, but it is wrong/rude/condescending to assume that role without consent.
Your peer's right to be respected is more important than your desire to have the discussion go a certain, or even the outcome of the conversation. Because if you assume an instructor role and turn a conversation into a seminar against your peer's consent and they don't like it, they won't hear a word you are saying. Your co-opting the situation will be a thousand times louder than anything you're actually saying - and it should be. Whatever the words might be, the actions are disrespectful. Your authority in the conversation is gone.
quote:
2)Assuming you're right and it IS wrong - I feel incredibly frustrated. I feel like I'm really good at facilitating certain types of conversation that other people aren't necessarily so good at. Some of the most intimate and meaningful conversations come out from places where only I am willing to step up.
What's the alternative?
Obtain consent. "Can I ask you something?"; "Can I make a suggestion?"; "I have an opinion - do you want to hear it?" And then wait for an affirmative answer before going on. That way they know that your respect and esteem for them is greater than your desire to speak.
quote: Is it that I conduct conversations with extreme sensitivity? (I'm grateful to Raymond for opening the forum for THIS conversation, because I learned a lot from this meta-analysis). Or do I stop altogether?
Don't stop. Just don't presume. If you ask one of the above questions and it is a friendly conversation so far, 90% of people will say yes, and then the conversation is still respectful because you obtained consent before setting yourself in the superior knowledge role. The vast majority of the conversation you enjoy will still happen, and you won't alienate or disrespect anyone along the way. Your conversational partners will enjoy it just as much - almost certainly a greater percentage than do now, since calling people out on coopting a conversation is awkward and rarely done.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm socially savvy enough to have understood the point you were trying to make. I'm pretty sure I have consent most of the time, unless I'm hijacking, which I usually do when angry, and I already knew was bad.
But I'm talking about a feeling that I have that even though I've been given consent, I have this lingering insecurity that people think I m arrogant just because i am facilitating. And I feel like I'm facilitating better than others would. I just feel like I've been given a more leader-like mind and so I often steer conversations to address issues most people don't consider. I can read that sentence and notice the arrogance, but I also read the sentence and the truth of it resonates with me.
That's the "insecure" position I feel I am in. I mean, I guess there is no solution to it other than being ultra sensitive to the reactions of my friends, and to recognizing their superiority in their respective fields.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I wouldn't have worded it to myself in quite the same way, I honestly did think I had asked permission at the time I made the post that offended kat. My perception is perhaps biased because I knew what my motivations were the whole time, but what I started with in the Toy Story thread was:
quote: I really would like to open up a dialogue in which I can learn how to improve my posting habits, as well as point out things you have done that have been frustrating to me without you writing me off as a guy who isn't worth talking to. I've seen several people attempt to do this with you and you haven't seemed interested. I still feel that it is worth attempting but I really don't know how.
Later on I did say things that were a little more ambiguous. I can see how they come across as deceptive. But in the context of what I had already said, I thought was I clear.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may have declared your intention. That is not at all the same thing as being granted consent. The more personal, pointed, and insulting your comments, the more sure you need to be that you are granted the permission to say them. Silence, or posting in the thread, is not consent.
posted
I ended the part of the Toy Story thread asking permission to talk about issues in this thread. I realize that nowhere did you actually explicitly give me permission to do so, but I thought your showing up in this thread with what seemed to be an incredibly positive post was pretty clear confirmation that it was okay. As a general rule of thumb, I assume that if I've made my intentions clear, I've asked permission, and someone responds positively without also saying "No," it's okay to do whatever I've said I'm going to do.
I'm fine with modifying that rule for individual people if necessary, but I don't think its an unreasonable rule of thumb for my day to day interactions with most people. Especially if I'm trying really hard NOT to be insulting.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe you that you did not intend to be.
Please believe me that you were, in an enormous, condescending, unbelievably rude way, and my momentary kindness in responding was in no way permission for you to take those kinds of liberties and be that presumptuous. I'm a bit staggered that it was taken as such.
If you want to get that personal, you have to have either explicit permission or an incredibly personal relationship. You absolutely had neither. Your assumption that you did goes a long way to explain why I am rarely that kind.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think making statements or suggestions about other people's posting styles or public behavior without permission is inherently rude. Hatrack historically has been a somewhat self-policing forum; pointing out potential problems with a person's post and making suggestions on what to do differently is a part of that.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat: You have the thinnest skin on Hatrack. It can be very frustrating to engage in conversation with you, because one never knows when you will take things unreasonably personally and construe relatively neutral comments as personal attacks beyond the pale.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because people criticize doesn't mean it's effective. Saying something is rude isn't saying that it's "against the law" but that it offended that person to the point where it's unlikely that any content will be heard because that person is offended.
Despite Kat's thin-skin, only she can decide when it's okay to criticize her and when it's not. She has made her parameters clear: when she invites us or when she is super close with us, that's when she is willing to listen.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm pretty sure the forum as a whole would be fine with that if she didn't have the widest, wildest double standard possible between what she will accept as permissible to subject her to versus what she will subject others to at the drop of a hat.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking about whether commentary and criticism without permission is typically considered rude by society at large. It doesn't seem to me that this is the case.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say that I, personally, find unsolicited lecturers to be fantastically annoying. I find that I won't hear most of what they're saying, because I'll still be marveling at the fact that they are saying it at all. I'll be wondering at their motivation, and what they hoped to gain since the obvious one, my education or the education of a group of which I am a part, is no longer an option since we are all annoyed.
I remember one guy at a Christian gathering randomly talked about the history of Christmas traditions, and then how he wanted to be able to tell his future children and grandchildren all about how we got Christmas traditions, and wouldn't be quiet about them. He graciously repsonded to all questions about the subject material in a manner so horrible paternal that I soon asked him about Mistletoe hoping to shut him up. He actually answered. My only regret was that the pastor wasn't around to hear about that particular history.
On the other hand, one of my professors has been pretty close with me outside of class, and I enjoy his rambling. His quality of knowledge is no better than that of the previous friend I discussed, but his easy-going manner, his lack of a need of validations from me and anybody else in the room, all lead me to enjoy his ramblings.
In any case, I've digressed. I would say that, in response to Armoth, should you be even a tad bit aware of your surroundings, you should know whether or not your lecture or conversation facilitation is wanted. I won't say it's wrong in and of itself to lecture. But, if not wanted, it's a good way to ensure that people don't like you and you won't be heard.
I think a big part of it is when the lecturing is a putting in place of another person. I am above you in this way. I will now flaunt my personal experience with mental illness and school you in the way of mental hospitals. I will tell you how much more I know about this subject, even if it is a meaningless detail, just to assure you that my argument has an intrinsic weight to it that yours does not. I will lecture you because I have more life experience. In all of these cases, the lecture is not just a lecture; it is an attempt to lend credence to anything the speaker has to say about the discussion, period.
I'm not saying that Ray meant it in that way. But, having witnessed several lectures of the type I've described on this board, I will say that Katherina has probably witnessed or experienced enough of them to assume that Ray might have meant the same thing.
And sorry, if I'm misrepresenting anybody's ideas here. I do not know Katherina's reasons for dismissing Ray's lecture (And I do believe it was a lecture), or the validity or lackthereof of Ray's lecture. I'm speaking only of myself and my probably flawed view of events.
The end.
I'll probably edit later, for I feel that I've been fantastically inarticulate.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was thinking about whether commentary and criticism without permission is typically considered rude by society at large. It doesn't seem to me that this is the case.
Really? I think you should spend a week walking up to people - pick a variety: strangers, friends, coworkers, friends of friends, the bus driver, your boss - and giving them five-minute lectures on all the things you don't like about them. Report back and let us know how that goes. Be sure to include negative assessments of character, personality, and intelligence as the subjects of those unsolicited lectures.
I'm serious. I would LOVE to hear how that went. If possible, record them and post a .wav file. And possibly pictures of the bruises.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But isn't it fair to be honest with people when they do something that truly bothers us or hurts our feelings? Or, in a discussion setting, something that makes interaction with them difficult or painful?
[Phrased as a question so as to be softer, and not because I'm setting a trap. It could be read as a statement as well.]
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was about asking for permission. I thought that being tactful was a given, but perhaps I should have made it clear.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: Eh, I'm regretting this already. If anyone already saw it, I stand by it. But the only part that should really be in a public area is that I apologize for doing any of this in a public area, especially in a thread that began with me telling other people not to do exactly that.
[ July 19, 2010, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no tactful way to give unsolicited, critical lectures that doesn't include asking permission.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The message I edited included a no frills, two-sentence statement of the things I'm still angry about, and apologies for the things I genuinely regret. I actually intended to send it as a PM or e-mail or whatever, but kat's e-mail is blocked (rather understandably, I admit) and at this point I doubt it's worth it to either of us to go through the hoops necessary to do it privately. (And including a message like this that offered the option of jumping through those hoops seemed to overdramatize the thing in a way that was just silly).
At the time I decided to err on the side of just posting the damn thing so I would have to sit with it stewing around. And then I promptly started stewing over the irony of continuing to publicly talk about things that I was, among other things, apologizing for publicly talking about.
But having already done so... and having gotten started writing this meta-meta-discussion... on the off chance that kat is okay with me posting it publicly, I still have it typed. If kat (or anyone) does want to talk about anything privately, my e-mail is in my profile. I do promise to not send more than one e-mail, unless given express permission to do otherwise.
[ July 20, 2010, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raymoondikations is my, well, special feeld. Special kultivar.
Poor Komkatarina! Poor Raymoond! The one means "Yes(Please me!)." but says "No(t Yet)!" The other means "No(w)!" but says "Yes(terday)..."
The wound or the wonder? The one the other!
K-k-k-cumoonIcKate! Eye me nit. I me nit. I'm mean. It sniffles over there in the corner, wistfully, thinking of home.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, if you had really bad body odor, would you rather be told about in a public setting by a casual acquaintance or remain blissful unaware?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny that you should ask. Just yesterday, rising from the jacuzzi of my palatial hotel suite, admiring my physique in the floor to ceiling glass, sipping on my deftly prepared martini, I lifted my glass to toast myself and my accomplishments and noticed that the exquisitely coy martini hostess (whose talents as a mixologist were merely a shallow, sheltered bay on the stormy sea of sensuality that I soon hoped to be sailing into) crinkled her beautiful nose.
She saw me see her and smiled. I turned my head, buried my nose in my armpit and sniffed deeply. It's hard to describe the odour. I asked her to smell my other pit, and judging by her initial reluctance and then what can only be decribed as her watery-eyed 'a posteriori' and somewhat shallow assurances that all was "Beautiful. Really." I engaged my incredibly blue and penetrating eyes in a search for the Febreze.
Doubt is the bedfellow of distraction.
The nose is a profound truth teller.
Later that evening, whisked past security and boarding my Lear Jet for the coast, it occurred to me that one can rarely outrun one's own smell. I stuck my hand into my loosely buttoned Armani silk shirt and squeezed my fingers into the rippling muscle pocket we call an armpit. Slowly sliding these now impregnated digits beneath my noble nostrils while watching the city fall beneath my feet I inhaled deeply.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: It's funny that you should ask. Just yesterday, rising from the jacuzzi of my palatial hotel suite, admiring my physique in the floor to ceiling glass, sipping on my deftly prepared martini, I lifted my glass to toast myself and my accomplishments and noticed that the exquisitely coy martini hostess (whose talents as a mixologist were merely a shallow, sheltered bay on the stormy sea of sensuality that I soon hoped to be sailing into) crinkled her beautiful nose.
She saw me see her and smiled. I turned my head, buried my nose in my armpit and sniffed deeply. It's hard to describe the odour. I asked her to smell my other pit, and judging by her initial reluctance and then what can only be decribed as her watery-eyed 'a posteriori' and somewhat shallow assurances that all was "Beautiful. Really." I engaged my incredibly blue and penetrating eyes in a search for the Febreze.
Doubt is the bedfellow of distraction.
The nose is a profound truth teller.
Later that evening, whisked past security and boarding my Lear Jet for the coast, it occurred to me that one can rarely outrun one's own smell. I stuck my hand into my loosely buttoned Armani silk shirt and squeezed my fingers into the rippling muscle pocket we call an armpit. Slowly sliding these now impregnated digits beneath my noble nostrils while watching the city fall beneath my feet I inhaled deeply.
I have often compared the early evening moon to the submerged bud of a water lily, both silently surfacing.
The first time I noticed the similarities, I was trying to think of something to say, floating in my canoe one summer's eve.
A light but persistent wind was pushing the boat down the anonymous lake, towards the dark shore.
I've lifted my head from the screen a moment to listen carefully to the scratching noises coming from beneath the sink. Mice.
"The mosquito-ridden shore," I jotted down into my notebook in the dying light. The loon cried out, signalling the transistion to dusk.
The mice have taken over the insides of things. I can smell them. They've become quite brazen, this new generation, rifling amongst all my things, in amongst the paints and brushes, attracted by some fatal compulsion to eat the cadmium yellows.
By then, I couldn't see well enough to write down my moon observation, that is, the comparison of moon to lily, their quiet reaching. I let the wind carry me down, down, down into the darkness of the furthest shore. I would paddle back when the wind died.
Once, as a child, I was playing hide and seek in the park at twilight. The countdown of the seeker became fainter and fainter, and I was well hidden and waited. I waited, but nobody came and that's when it happened. Looking up, I saw the stars stitching the sky, I heard someone calling my name, I saw the branches of the trees shatter the dusk into shards, broken ice on the blackest of lakes, and I fell into the water.
The mice are slowly poisoned by mainly Yellow, but they don't know it. They've even shown their children where it is and how to chew off the plastic cap to kill yourself. The mouse is its own trap. The little yellow noses mark their fate.
With a sigh the canoe vanishes, the makeshift studio blends back into the ticking clock and the moon into a pale yellow bud.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
but I would like to note as a general rule of thumb that deliberate, point blank insults are the sort of thing that is lowering the overall quality of the forum. Doing so in a thread where someone is desperately trying maintain a civil atmosphere is particularly less than cool. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
