thinking about memes, thinking about thinking... [elanya]

You're viewing

elanya's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

Right's it's early in the morning, so my brain should be all fresh and alert right?

I've been thinking about memes. SOme of the ones I see go by... mostly the randomly generated quizes, are silly. Sometimes they are amusingly silly, in their own way, or when interpreted correctly. I like taking them for fake people and seeing how they turn out.

Some of them are neat, like the interview one, for instance, or the one where you tell people honestly what you think of them. Or the picture one, where people leave you pictures that make them think of you. In a way, it's egotistical, yes, but it is also an interesting way of seeing what people think of you, and of contrasting perceptions between your friends and between yourself and your friends. I really don't see what's wrong with that. And even if it is 'only' ego stroking, what's wrong with that? Isn't self validation part of the reason we need people? Is it more acceptable to troll for comliments subtly than to ask for them?

Some of memes are creative, like the one that

eljuno posted last night, where you leave a comment and he makes you an icon based on one of your lj interests. I think it's pretty nifty, but I won't be joining since I couldn't design an icon if my life depended it. Well I won't be offering you that opportunity, I did ask Juno for an icon. (And my apologies in regards to pronouns by the way, I'm not quite sure where things fall, so to speak...). Just because you're participating in something that other people have done first, does that mean that it isn't worthwhile?

Anyway, I do have more things to say on the subject, but I have to be off to class...

Mood::

pensive

←

→

There are 39 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Why troll for compliments at all? Take 'em as given.

I don't know if I agree completelky with this, but it does an okay job at making the point I am thinking of. And then, I can be lazy, and you get to look at a cartoon ^-^

[link] [parent] [reply]

Personally, I don't agree with the sentiments of the comic. I think one would have to be paranoid and insecure to always think that way.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Possibly... I don't agree with it 100% either. But I don't think it is a *conscious* way of thinking.

I don't thik you have to be insecure to want to be noticed, for instance. I would define you as being an attention hound, but not as insecure. Why do you like to be the center of attention?

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think there's a difference between wanting to be noticed and fishing for compliments. As a dancer, for instance, I don't dance so people will tell me how great I am, but I dance to make other people happy. I like for people to experience things I experience, and to think about things in new ways.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think that the point of fishing for compliments is often simply to have people notice you, and to have them note that you are in some way remarkable.

[link] [parent] [reply]

If I know someone is fishing for compliments, I generally find it pathetic.

[link] [parent] [reply]

So do I, a lot of the time, but I still do it... See posts on writing ;)

But people don't always do it consciously, as I said before. I think that a lot of the things that people, in general, do to get themselves noticed are also pretty pathetic (reality tv anyone?), but I think that they stem from the same reasons.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I just thought of something else... Which is that when I do things, like perform, or write, or whatever, and I'm seeking praise or feedback for it, it is because I want to know if I am doing a good job of pleasing my audience, as you put it, which is why we do things, right? It is satisfying to know that you are doing a good job, but without feedback, how do you know?

Yes, people give feedback of their own accord from time to time, but not always. And it depends on the venue. I find that after dance performances, for example, it is easier to get feedback from other dancers. Partly it is a matter of community, and partly a matter of energy, I think. People are less likely to leave comments on written work unless directly solicited, and even then... This is based on my experience with various story-telling groups, more than with LJ, which is a more communicative medium.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I believe there is a significant difference between fishing for praise and seeking feedback. In the former, you are looking only for the positive, whereas in the latter, you are looking for information, whether positive or negative.

When I look for feedback, I'm trying to find ways to improve what I'm doing. One of the reasons I stopped going to the Albert Ross Society's creative writing group was because it was a whole bunch of back-patting, and no real constructive criticism. It was useless to me as a writer. Sure, it's nice to hear that people like your story, but if all you hear is how nice a story is, without ever getting any useful information on how to improve, the whole experience becomes vacuous.

Yes, I like to know what I'm doing right, but I find it more important to know what I'm doing wrong.

My goal as an artist/entertainer isn't necessarily to please my audience, but to make them think or feel. For example, I've written some things which have inspired outrage rather than pleasure.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I agree... I would raher have more comments on a piece that I have written than "I like it!", but I find that the first step is finding out if it has been read at all, so when people leave me an 'I like it!" comment, I will tend to pursue them for more specifics. If they did like it, I want to know why so I can keep doing whatever to at least that standard. If they didn't, well, then I want to know why, so I can fix it (unless I disagree).

And earlier you said that you like to dance to make your audience happy, which is what I was drawing on, although, yes, that is over simplified. In any artistic form, there are multiple emptional responses that we can aim for. If I can write something that makes some one cry, well, that's an achievement ^-^

I think there is kind of a blurry line between praise seeking and imput seeking. I know that I would rather hear that I'm doing a good job than a poor one, but I ultimately prefer *honest* comments. I'm 'seeking praise' in the sense that I hope I am doing well, not in the sense that I want people to lie to me to make me feel good. But it is still the praise that I'm ultimately after, because, as I said, that's what tells me I am succeeding in my intentions. And it's all about intent right? ^-^

[link] [parent] [reply]

But aren't we all insecure from time to time? It's not about 'always' thinking that way, but about occasionally needing validation, and not having any way to get it immediately at hand.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hence why I used the word "always."

[link] [parent] [reply]

Right, but the question you asked initially is why fish for compliments at all. And the answer is simply that people need validation at certain moments, and letting it be known is the most efficient way to do that.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I still think fishing for compliments is a pretty sad way of getting validation.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Oops, sorry, my last comment accidentally got posted from one of my Perseity LJs. I've deleted it now, and copied it below.

I suppose it depends on how one defines 'fishing'. "Tell me I'm pretty" obviously counts, but how about putting a photo of you when you look your best up on your LJ? Or putting up a story, not so much hoping for constructive criticism but rather trusting in your friends to be kind and encouraging? The lines get blurred.

[link] [parent] [reply]

It all goes back to intent. When I post pictures of myself, I'm not doing it so people can tell me how hawt I am. Hell, I put plenty of unflattering pictures of myself up for people to see, too. Neither do I post stories so people can tell me how good they are. I do it to entertain. That's my nature.

And perhaps it's perverse, but I enjoy my hate mail much more than I do my fan mail.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think you've made a key observation, here. The intention is what matters.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Fair enough; I agree that intent has a lot to do with it. I simply disagree that anyone's intent can ever be 100% pure, and would contend that there is always some extent to which flaunting oneself, hoping for compliments, and so on will be involved. Some people are better at (consciously or no) mixing multiple intents and less blatantly "seeking" flattery/compliments, it's true. And yes, I am annoyed when people are constantly going on to the effect of "Aren't I so good?", looking for validation. But with friends who may be going through tough times, who may have self-esteem problems, or may just simply be having a rotten day, I'm inclined to give a fair bit of leeway.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Nothing's 100% pure. Not even Ivory Soap!

I don't think self-esteem problems are helped any by the constant feeding of asked-for praise, though. I mean, wouldn't the person with low self-esteem not be aware that they were getting praise precisely because they were asking for it?

[link] [parent] [reply]

No, because it's not really a conscious process for a lot of people, I believe. And sometimes where it seems to be conscious to outsiders, it may in fact not be.

Even if it is conscious, though, it doesn't negate its effectiveness. After all, when you post something to entertain people, and then it does its job, you are happy that you have successfully done what you set out to do. And really, the only other options are to ignore the plea for praise entirely (leading to further self-esteem problems) or to reply with something other than praise (same effect). It may not be *helping*, but it doesn't hurt. Of course, if it were a long-term situation, then a friend would want to take some other action to help, but on a once-in-a-while basis, I don't see the problem with it.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I've been thinking about memes.

Dare I ask ... ? ;-)

In a way, it's egotistical, yes, but it is also an interesting way of seeing what people think of you, and of contrasting perceptions between your friends and between yourself and your friends. I really don't see what's wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with that at all, if you're the sort of person that is interested in that sort of thing. My IRL friend Andrew D. is one of those people (as are you, apparently), and he raised a similar argument with me: he's very interested in learning the sort of minutae/details that these memes expose.

And even if it is 'only' ego stroking, what's wrong with that? Isn't self validation part of the reason we need people? Is it more acceptable to troll for comliments subtly than to ask for them?

Like Shan says: why fish for compliments in the first place? Most of the memes aren't about that, they're about revealing details of a person's existence/internal state. (I understand that, though I'm not interested personally.) As for asking for compliments; who does that seriously? If anything, I prefer to offer/receive constructive criticism. You also seem to appreciate the latter (at least as far as your typos go =] ), but there's a disconnect between folks like me who embrace that mindset and folks like ... well, let's not name names, since that'll get people angry for no reason ... folks who can't take criticism and seem to need a steady stream of compliments in order to function.

I understand that there are folks who need those compliments, and I don't supply them, which probably causes a lot of fricton, but it's a two-way road: I need (constructive) criticism, compliments just irritate me.

As for memes, I think my latest post (and the ensuing commentary) reveal far more on the subject than I'd care to recapitulate here. Too much to do. ;-)

[BTW: "Right's", "SOme", "quizes", "comliments", "lj" (usually capitalized)]

I've been thiking about memes for a while. I often question why people do things, and wht they are looking for. I'm curious like that. I won't deny that there was maybe a catalystic event that made me think about it more, recently :p

Not being able to take criticism and 'requiring compliments to function', as you put it, are not mutually inclusive. However, accusing someone (naming names or otherwise) of engaging in "the absolute worst kind of purile fantasy-fulfillment", that is not constructive critcism :p It's rude, to put it midly. As a participant in the meme in question, I think I have reason to be offended by your rant.

It's true that you lack a certain social grace, and this has been noted in the past, bu yourself and others. You calim not to care, and that's fine. I believe you most of the time. however, I think that your inability to understand people is really going to hurt you in the long run, in any number of ways. You really seem unable to see past the dichotomy of rational/emotional, which is a shame, because this dichotomy if an over-simplistic model and not representative of how most people really think, act, and, generally, live. True objectivity may be a noble goal for a scientist, but it is not one that is possible to obtain, and I think that sometimes you think yourself closer to it than you really are.

Anyway, that was sort of a digression. I think my thoughts on compliment giving/receiving is being better illustrated in the ongoing dialogue with your wife, atm, so I am not going to repeat it here.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Before I start, I should point out that Shan told me I was "rude and offensive" in my comment, above. As usual, I didn't mean it to be, but she tells me the part about not naming names comes across with a "snide, insinuating slant". I assure you it was strictly unintentional: I did that in order to not inflame those third parties I would normally have used as examples (as I used myself for the converse case). The Catch 22 is that if I was to name names, then I'd be criticizing people who I believe can't accept criticism, so I shouldn't name names. But without those examples, I don't have much of a "realization" for my argument. Shan said that it wasn't so much that I didn't want to identify people, but that I shouldn't have said that there were actual people I chose not to identify, which confuses me indeed, since she said that it would have been perfecly all right for me to say something like: "We both know people that behave ...". I see that as the same thing, and didn't mean to offend (as always), if any offense was taken. Okay, having said that, let's move on. ;-)

Not being able to take criticism and 'requiring compliments to function', as you put it, are not mutually inclusive.

I didn't claim they were *necessarily* though I've observed that if a person holds one trait, they tend not to hold the other. In a sense, I do see a generalization to "either a person can take compliments or they can take criticism, but not both", but that's a subjective interpretation.

However, accusing someone (naming names or otherwise) of engaging in "the absolute worst kind of purile fantasy-fulfillment", that is not constructive critcism :p It's rude, to put it midly. As a participant in the meme in question, I think I have reason to be offended by your rant.

Okay, that's a fair point. I may have been overly rude in expressing my anger and frustration at what I perceive to be a gratuitious and self-serving (yes, those are negative terms), but rudeness requires a target: I had no individuals in mind when I wrote that. As claimed elsewhere, my frustration is with a trend, not the individuals that express that trend. I think there are deeper forces at play here, mostly dealing with differing world-views. To oversimplify, I think people are usually clumped towards one end of a "social/rational" continuum. Of course, I tend to value the rational end more, and use positive terms like "intellectual" to describe peers in that cluster (which doesn't preclude others from being intellectual, just that those in that cluster tend to be concerned more than the others with "traditional" intellectual pursuits), and negative terms for the other end of things (examples omitted for brevity and fear of recriminations =] ).

The biggest problem, as I see is, is that people can/do/will read my posts and comments in a very different light than that which I intended them to be interpreted, especially if they're on the other end of that continuum I mentioned. Not having enough interest in bridging to what I perceive as having less value (thier interests), I tend not to adjust my style accordingly. Thus I am percieved as rude, offensive, inconsiderate, and a whole passel of other negative terms by some kinds of people. Yes, I could spend the effort to be unambiguous in my writing/speech, but I have no interest in doing so, as they have no interest in checking with me to see if the meaning they've understood was what was intended. I'm willing to cooperate, but only if the effort is commensurable. In the specific case of me ranting from my own soapbox, however, the effort must be higher on the "outsider's" part, otherwise the situation just isn't fair.

Did that make any sense?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sorry, I'm not convinced that you can possibly have meant it in the abstract, because in your post, you mentioned (though not by name) that part of your disgust was that 'mind-rot' had reached to your 'second-tier' friends; that is, it was not merely the existence of the meme in the abstract, but that there were specific people doing this meme, leading you to rant the way you did.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, as I said, no amount of argumentation on my side will convince you. Either you trust me, and accept that I'm telling the truth about my intentions (the "don't shoot the messenger" case), or you doubt me. So I'll let it drop here.

[link] [parent] [reply]

It's true that you lack a certain social grace, and this has been noted in the past, bu yourself and others. You calim not to care, and that's fine. I believe you most of the time.

Perhaps what's missing is a careful definition of what it means to "not care", when I use that phrase. It comes down to a distillation of the above: I lack interest in expending the effort to bridge to a mind that I believe isn't going to be interested in my ideas (or in supplying ideas that I would find interesting). I can expand if desired.

however, I think that your inability to understand people is really going to hurt you in the long run, in any number of ways. You really seem unable to see past the dichotomy of rational/emotional, which is a shame, because this dichotomy if an over-simplistic model and not representative of how most people really think, act, and, generally, live.

I understand your objection, though as mentioned above, I don't see this as a dichotomy, but as a continuum, where the extreme positions are mutually exclusive. I place myself very near the extreme, but admit that the huge majority are somewhere in between (though "clustered", IMO). I also understand that this isn't an adequate model of people's behaviour, though it does serve as a sort of "general classifier" for guiding my discussions with people I meet. Life is too short to obey all the social pleasantries, if doing so limits the amount of intellectual activity that can be shared.

True objectivity may be a noble goal for a scientist, but it is not one that is possible to obtain, and I think that sometimes you think yourself closer to it than you really are.

Hmm. I appreciate the observation, a "reality check" is a good thing now and then. ;-) I don't believe myself to be as nearly objective as you suggest, though. I know, probably far better than you do, just how far I am from being "truly objective". There's a reason I don't accept the self-label of scientist. Not yet, anyway. I aspire to be a scientist, though there's a long, long ways to go before that happens.

Anyway, that was sort of a digression. I think my thoughts on compliment giving/receiving is being better illustrated in the ongoing dialogue with your wife, atm, so I am not going to repeat it here.

Groovy.

BTW: "catalystic" (catalytic), "bu" (by), "calim" (claim), "however" (capitalization)

[link] [parent] [reply]

There's constructive criticism, and then there's hurling insults. And when "one" starts those battles, "one" should not be surprised when the insults are returned. Not naming names does nothing to avoid insulting people.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Obviously you're referencing my latest post. It's too late to put the worms back in the can, but I assure you that I didn't mean to insult anyone. The fact that people were insulted serves to illustrate my inability to truly adopt the mindset of those on the other end of the emotional/rational continuum from where I am (to use a concept from a recent comment). I very honestly didn't mean to offend, and nor was I offering constructive criticism with my post, quite the opposite: I was expressing frustration at a concept, not at the "messenger".

"Not naming names" is a mechanism I thought was a polite way of giving examples without offending people. Shan has corrected me on that point, and in the future I'll try to avoid even that.

If it helps any, I truly had no intention of aggravating anyone. I just wanted to express my anger at the whole concept of "quiz/meme" stuff in general, and, as usual, unknowningy put my foot in my mouth.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yes, I am referencing your last post. But were you truly unaware that the following *very* obvious inferences from your post were insulting?

1. You are engaging in nauseating, revolting behaviour.
2. You are engaging in puerile behaviour.
3. You are suffering from 'mind-rot'.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But there are two, and only two, appropriate ways, to deal with it.

1) Send the offender a personal, *private* communication explaining how you feel, and why.
2) Keep quiet and suffer in silence.

It's no good hiding behind "I was only speaking in the abstract / being frustrated at a concept". You were talking about *people* and their *behaviour* - in fact, one person in particular who is/was supposed to be your friend, even if only a "second-tier" friend (which is a backhanded insult as well, but I won't get into that here). Surely you can see that "A friend of mine is engaging in disgusting and childish behaviour" is easily interpreted as an insult. And if you can't do so, then you really need help.

In fact, I find this meme to be very interesting from a "perception vs. reality" perspective, because it enables you to learn a lot about how people think you perceive them and how we so rarely tell people, even our close friends, how we really feel about them except in exceptional cases. It's interesting to see how people can apply four or five of fifteen sentences to themselves, and, in fact, learn more about their friendships and improve themselves. I don't find it puerile in the least, and in fact I intend to do it myself. Just so you're warned.

[link] [parent] [reply]

In his defense, there was more than one incidence of this particular meme, and he really wasn't speaking about any person in particular.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The fact that there are multiple people doing it does not reduce the extent to which any person may be offended when accused of puerile, nauseating, mind-rotting behaviour. Particularly when, as in the case of this meme, it need not be interpreted in that way, but rather as an interesting emotional-intellectual exercise. Abstract language often conceals concrete thought, and one needs to be aware of that when loudly proclaiming disgust.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yes, I am referencing your last post. But were you truly unaware that the following *very* obvious inferences from your post were insulting?

1. You are engaging in nauseating, revolting behaviour.
2. You are engaging in puerile behaviour.
3. You are suffering from 'mind-rot'.

If understood as being directed at some individual, of course it would be insulting! I'm capable of seeing it from that such a perspective, it's just that I never do that unless someone points out the need to do so. It's too much effort to always run everything through a "if I was a sensitive person/someone who takes things personally/[whatever term works best here]" filter. I lapse on occasion, and would prefer that people accept that (and a subsequent apology) rather than assuming there's only one way to interpret it. There *is* an abstract perspective behind the above point, and the concrete language used is just that, loaded language, meant to express the viseral response that particular meme elicited.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But there are two, and only two, appropriate ways, to deal with it.

1) Send the offender a personal, *private* communication explaining how you feel, and why.
2) Keep quiet and suffer in silence.

Again, you missed the point: I didn't want to censure any particular individuals about participating in the meme! If I had anyone in mind, it was the *originator* of that meme, whoever that might be. The person that came up with it is clearly the sort to apply "purile", "mind-rot" and other perjoratives to. I think this is a case of people seeing me as shooting the messenger, when what I really did (or meant to do) was revile the message itself.

It's no good hiding behind "I was only speaking in the abstract / being frustrated at a concept". You were talking about *people* and their *behaviour* ...

I was? Really? What makes you say that??! Where did I say "Julie/Heather/[whoever] is a moron for posting this meme"? I didn't! You can't know what's going on in my own mind, and you *have* to rely on my assertions as to my motivations. If you haven't been convinced by this point that I always tell the truth, then nothing I can say will ever change that ... but it doesn't change the fact that I had *NO* intention of insulting anyone, despite the fact that people got insulted.

As for my talking about people and their behaviour, yes, I'm talking about "people", not any person(s), and "their" behaviour. Again, no individuals. I was, and am, talking about the mind-set that facilitates the emergence of (and admittedly, to a lesser extent the participation in) this sort of behaviour. Sure, it's insulting if looked at in the particular, but that was not my intention. If I knew beforehand that someone would be personally offended by the words I used, I would have changed the words ... but not the idea.

... in fact, one person in particular who is/was supposed to be your friend, even if only a "second-tier" friend (which is a backhanded insult as well, but I won't get into that here).

I have to speak up to this point, since I just now realized how it also could have been (and was, apparently) misinterpreted: I have three filter levels, the first is for people who's posts *and* commented I read, the second is for those who's posts I skim and who's comments I only rarely read, the third is for photopost communities and people who spew far too many posts. I check the former quite often, the second once a day, and the third on occasion, though I pay little attention to it. I didn't mean to make a value-judgement about members of those various filters. [And who's to say who's on what filter, anyway? :-) ]

[link] [parent] [reply]

If understood as being directed at some individual, of course it would be insulting!

By phrasing generically it as you did, you insult EVERYONE who participates in the meme. ANYONE who did it is engaging in "nauseating, revolting behaviour", "puerile behaviour", and "mind-rot".

How can you not see that? Is this some sort of semantic game for you?

I'm capable of seeing it from that such a perspective, it's just that I never do that unless someone points out the need to do so.

If so, I can only imagine what kind of problems this causes you in daily life.

It's too much effort to always run everything through a "if I was a sensitive person/someone who takes things personally/[whatever term works best here]" filter.

I think it's wrong (morally and factually) for you to imply that anyone who found your post offensive is somehow hypersensitive. You should be calling it an "if I were a normal, socially well-adjusted person who recognized the boundaries of acceptable discourse and realized what normal well-adjusted people find offensive" filter.

I lapse on occasion, and would prefer that people accept that (and a subsequent apology) rather than assuming there's only one way to interpret it.

I'm afraid you don't seem to get it. Here you're implying that it's somehow the fault of others for "misunderstanding" you and "overreacting".

It's not.

[link] [parent] [reply]

By phrasing generically it as you did, you insult EVERYONE who participates in the meme. ANYONE who did it is engaging in "nauseating, revolting behaviour", "puerile behaviour", and "mind-rot".

Sure, if you look at it that way. And when *I* look at it that way, I see it as very insulting. It's just that I *didn't* see it that way when I posted my original mini-rant. Why are people so up in arms over it? Realize that I meant no offence and either move on or ask for an apology. Seems easy enough. *confused*

How can you not see that? Is this some sort of semantic game for you?

No, I see it, as I've said elsewhere. I just don't see it without being prompted. This is another case of what I've previously described as my being "socially retarded": I quite literally don't perceive these injurious/insulting interpretations until they're brought to my attention. Of course, once that's done, I can remove/reword the post, but the damage has already been done, no? It's not a fault on the reader's end, it's *my* fault, gladly admitted, and one I've discussed before in several places.

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not (intentionally, at least) playing semantic games.

If so, I can only imagine what kind of problems this causes you in daily life.

Piles and piles. Though I think the impact of this flaw of mine is mitigated in real-life situations because there are "side-channels" for information flow: I'll say something terrifically insulting but the listener can tell that I didn't intend it as such, perhaps through facial expression or body language. Contrary to nearly everyone whom I know both online and in-person, I exhibit the same personality, mannerisms, actions, and flaws in both venues. At least, as far as I know I do, and those I've asked fail to see a difference, beyond the obvious: everyone has more time to craft their words/thoughts in a textual medium. I actually consider each post/comment I make (of non-trivial length/subject matter) to be, essentially, a mini-lecture, and apply the same interpretation to the posts/comments I read.

"...'if I was a sensitive person/someone who takes things personally/[whatever term works best here]' filter".

I think it's wrong (morally and factually) for you to imply that anyone who found your post offensive is somehow hypersensitive.

I tried to avoid precisely that interpretation with the use of "someone who takes things personally" and the even-more-generic-and-less-judgemental "[whatever term works best here]". I know I'm terrible at choosing the right words not to offend, so offered up what I felt to be three choices: one closer to my interpretation (biased towards valuing "rationality"), one neutral, and one generic entry meant to reflect the desire that the term be taken in the abstract. Moreover, I didn't say "hypersensititive", that's your term, and is rather more negative than what I intended. I do claim, though, that people who get offended at what I wrote are, obviously, sensitized to such things! Finally, how can you state that I am morally wrong without getting into a comparison of our respective moral systems, unless you're applying your own in a display of the very bias you accuse me of? As for being factually incorrect, I'll reiterate: the term "hypersentitive" was not mine.

[link] [parent] [reply]

You should be calling it an "if I were a normal, socially well-adjusted person who recognized the boundaries of acceptable discourse and realized what normal well-adjusted people find offensive" filter.

I'll concede that I'm far from being a "socially well-adjusted person who recognize[s] the boundaries of acceptable discourse", but I won't admit the use of the word "normal", here, as it's just too much of a value judgement. In my perspective, which is as subjectively valid as your own, I consider myself to be perfectly normal for what I am (and as for what that is, I don't want to get into yet another discussion on elitism and whatnot, so let's just leave the whole issue aside). This doesn't change the fact that I was suggesting that, precisely because I lack these "normal" graces/abilities, running everything I do and say through an artificial-to-me filter is an exhausting effort. I just don't have that much time.

"I lapse on occasion, and would prefer that people accept that (and a subsequent apology) rather than assuming there's only one way to interpret it."

I'm afraid you don't seem to get it. Here you're implying that it's somehow the fault of others for "misunderstanding" you and "overreacting".

It's not.

No, I'm not implying anything! I always mean what I say, which is the whole point of this rant! I mean exactly what I said: when I offend, I ask that people *check first* before assuming that offence was intentional. The misunderstanding is on the part of the listener, but the *reason* for it is not their fault, it's *mine*, and I never suggested otherwise. If an "overreaction" (your term!) occurs as a result of that misunderstanding, then the onus *is* on me to clarify myself, and on the listener to try to come to an understanding of what happened. That's what intellectual discourse is all about, and is, unfortunately for those towards the other end of the "continuum", the only thing I really *do* care about.

In short, if I have to spend so much time worrying about a person's feelings and dealing with their irrational-to-me behaviour (even if it arises as a consequence of my own *unintentional* actions), then I can't help but hold that person in a position of lesser value. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with my own world-view! Sure, that's an arrogant position, but I've never, ever disclaimed that label. (Pretentious, on the other hand....)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Surely you can see that "A friend of mine is engaging in disgusting and childish behaviour" is easily interpreted as an insult. And if you can't do so, then you really need help.

Sure it's an insult if seen in that light. As Shan said elsewhere, it comes down to intention, though. I didn't mean any insult, and I'll gladly apologize for it ... if asked. I wasn't, though, was I? I mean, I was *royally flamed*! Should I offer up some apology, unasked, to someone who has just insulted me quite strenuously? I don't understand....

In fact, I find this meme to be very interesting from a "perception vs. reality" perspective, because it enables you to learn a lot about how people think you perceive them and how we so rarely tell people, even our close friends, how we really feel about them except in exceptional cases. It's interesting to see how people can apply four or five of fifteen sentences to themselves, and, in fact, learn more about their friendships and improve themselves. I don't find it puerile in the least, and in fact I intend to do it myself. Just so you're warned.

Oh go ahead! I just because I don't personally value it doesn't mean you shoudn't participate. It's your journal, and you can post whatever you want it in, without fear of recriminations. [At least I thought that was the case, recent events proving otherwise. ;-) ]

I guess the summary is that I see the value in the intention behind the meme (at least for those who are interested), but I loathe the "mutation" that it underwent during/after its realization into the "anonymously bashing/complimenting" form, coupled with the "let's play match-names-to-items and I'll tell you when you're right" variation.

If you'd like, I can make another post describing precisely what it is about that meme I find so irritating. But I suspect the issue has been clouded beyond recovery at this point.

[link] [parent] [reply]

You are quite right that there would be no merit in having you write another post to explain yourself further.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, you can't win them all! :-)

In the future (if there is a [shared] one, after the present round of unfriending settles), all I can do is rely on my various postings to illustrate that I have no hidden motives and that I don't mean to offend. We'll see...

[link] [parent] [reply]

May