Skip to main content

View Diary: The Internet is "Humanity's Nervous System." But What if Humanity Isn't Human? (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ... so that's a "no" then. Okay. (0+ / 0-)

    Why are you assuming "consumed with their own ideology" rather than "actually hurt"?

    •  I'm not assuming. I'm observing. (0+ / 0-)

      People sincerely expressing feelings behave one way.  People just being dicks who think their sensibilities should be more important than yours in the things you write behave another way.  I answered the former with an explanation and an apology; and I answered the latter with my middle finger.  It sucks that the latter was necessary, but unfortunately the matter happened to be championed by someone who clearly wasn't conversing in good faith.  AFAIC, the matter is dealt with.

      •  Wait, sorry, I think we crossed wires here. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm not talking about reacting to people's reactions, I'm talking about self-censoring in anticipation of people's reactions.

        You said you choose to be insensitive rather than pander to anticipated disapproval, and I offered an alternative way of thinking about it.

        •  Valid point. (0+ / 0-)

          But ultimately it seemed to me like I can't simultaneously treat readers like emotionally fragile children who need to be sheltered from anything that might strike a nerve and respect them as intelligent, responsible people who could in any way deal with the concepts I'm trying to discuss.  The proof in the pudding is simply that my rhetoric was in line with current cultural standards, so going after me for it while far more insensitive things appear in popular Rolling Stone articles and humor pieces without anything like that kind of reaction shows where the flaw is.

          •  Iiii don't think that's proof of anything, in fact (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Especially because it's false; when insensitive things like that appear in articles and humor pieces, there is pretty much always that kind of reaction.  When there isn't, it's because of outrage fatigue, not hypocrisy.  "Current cultural standards" are honestly pretty vile.

            As for how to treat readers, in practical terms, there's a very useful middle ground: if the concepts you're trying to discuss are potentially upsetting to the emotionally fragile (who, just so you know, can also be intelligent responsible people), you keep the potentially upsetting parts under the fold and put a trigger warning above it -- thus trusting your readers to gauge for themselves whether they can deal with it.  If they click through after reading the warning, it's on them, not on you.

            And if a casual metaphor or joke might be upsetting, you can consider whether that metaphor or joke is really necessary to the concepts you're trying to discuss.  In this case I think it probably wasn't; as you yourself pointed out when another user took you to task for it, it was trivial and distracting and had nothing to do with your diary's actual point.

            You can have consideration for other people's feelings without letting that consideration stifle you.  People manage it all the time.

            •  Sounds reasonable. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Batya the Toon

              I spend more time thinking than interacting with people, so I tend to be a lot more emphatic on the former and not as aware of the latter.  

              •  That can happen! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                We're all stuck in our own heads to a certain degree, and working out what it's like in other people's heads can take a lot of effort.

                Thanks for listening, and for giving me credit for good faith.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site