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)
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....)