Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drib
I’ve often wondered what emotional and educational coinage is at stake when reasonable people disagree to the point of rudeness. I realize that differing personalities often dictate the tone of written discourse, but I’ve also often wondered if two people met who had diametrically opposite views would later find themselves drinking a glass of wine as they discussed their issues, or if they would be ignoring one another. Or would there be an argument right there next to the bar/restaurant?
We’ve often heard a member or a moderator say something to the effect that [this or that comment] was rude, and often – but not always, unfortunately – the person would come back and make a gracious apology and all would be forgiven. And I’ve seen the opposite, as well.
I’m not going to mention names here, but even in the Conservatory there is sometimes a recurring thematic verbal assault upon one member or another. I realize passions run high, but were some of us raised this way, to be intolerant of other’s views? Generally writing, why does this happen? What precipitated this event? Are we that much wedded to our ideals that we sometimes forget what it means to be human? Or is this, indeed, part of what it means to be human?
I think this is fodder for an interesting discussion. Strangely, however, I expect some passionate comments (and the rude remark or two?) if we decide to pursue this discussion.
Don
|
When I first read this original post I wanted to comment but then saw that HarryT and others, in being quicker to repsond, already touched on some of the points I would have made, and so I just moved on.
Upon reflection, being several days later, I've decided to go ahead and post my thoughts anyway. It's just as acceptable to post like-minded views as well as opposing ones I believe.
The following is a partial quote of my own words taken from a PM between myself and an individual whom I will not name, and I will alter (or add to) the original wording as necessary to keep that privacy in tact. We had this PM exchange several days before Dr. Drib started this thread and I feel compelled to repeat it here. I had initially contemplated starting a thread myself with these same thoughts in mind but Dr. Drib beat me to it. (Kudos Don)
. . . and as such I'm sure you'll agree . . . that the manner in which you post a remark and the words you choose to use, makes all the difference in the perception and understanding of what's being said. If I misunderstand the intent of a poster's words, I do apologize. I can not hear the inflection in their voice, see the expression on their face, the posture of their body, or telepathically read their mind for intent. All I can do is read their written words and judge from that evidence what their meaning is.
. . . when words such as "all" and "every" rather than "many" and "some" are used in making a statement, there is bound to be a strong reaction of some sort, even if it's not volitile. The reader is bound to react vigorously simply because of the "absolutes" implied in such statements.
Isn't this "absolute" wording as inflamatory as saying "all blacks are stupid," "all Indians are savages," "all Mexicans are thieves," and "all Pit Bulls are killers?" I would assume that most, if not all, of us on this forum are literate. That's why we're here, because we love to read. We have a certain respect for, and understanding of the written word.
I can only speak for myself, but I tend to take the written word used in commentary literally, since there are no visual or audible cues to add subtle nuances to the meaning.
Conversely, a poster who is careful to utilize conditional words and state personal views or experiences rather than absolutes, is very often called to task and attacked for comments that were only
perceived to be made, and not
actually made.
I believe that the tone of any thread begins with the original poster of that thread. If the OP takes care to review their words as well as their thoughts and overall context of the post, and takes additional care not to incite the readers from the get-go, the thread has a damn good chance of maintaining civility and ensuring success in the exchange of ideas instead of arguments.
I also think it's important for each reader to re-read a post if necessary to refrain from a possible hostile knee-jerk reaction to something they simply misunderstood. I think this is especially true in a world wide forum such as MR where language and syntax doesn't always translate well.
Sometimes we're in such a hurry to respond quickly to a post that it backfires and needlessly ignites tempers and an ineffectual heated exchange ensues. We should probably all slow down just a bit. We're not speed reading through a novel here. We're dealing with real people who have ideas, opinions and emotions. And disagree as we often will, it seems a waste of time and energy (and a real risk of alienating good friends) to damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead without taking a deep breath first. It takes twice as long to explain what you really meant as it would to state it carefully in the first place. I'm sure we'll still sometimes be misunderstood but to a much lesser degree and maybe with less severity than otherwise would be the case.
But that's just me . . . 