thinking about memes, thinking about thinking... : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
||||
|
4
|
5
|
6 |
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
"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.
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
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? :-) ]
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)
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.
(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....)
(no subject)
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
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...