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....)
no subject
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....)