*wistful* I guess a sweeping policy of beating people over the head with this essay until they get it is out of the question?
In all seriousness, though, an excellent essay. It will never cease to baffle me how many people just don't seem to have the respect for whoever it is they're interacting with to show essential courtesy to them--which is to say, making the effort to be polite, and to show consideration for the other person's position.
I half-wonder if it's that, as the first link you posted notes, it's because people (especially online, but in some offline situations, too) just don't register that the other person is a human being--if it's a matter of either being so insulated by one's own self-centeredness, or by the medium of the internet, that the other person isn't "real". If someone isn't "real" to you, then making the effort to extend courtesy becomes even more troublesome.
(Vague parallel for offline interactions: how "real" is the person behind the counter, checking your groceries/making your mocha latte/taking the money for your fast food? Although there's a certain differential there...)
*thoughtful* I think it is, definitely, that online interaction simply doesn't trip the same switches that most of us really did get taught as children (widespread evidence to the contrary aside) that make us polite (mostly at least) when face to face.
But then I think how many people in fandom, particularly, say that their online interaction is one of the most real, most valuable parts of their social life, and how does that fit in?
I can believe that a lot of the won't-be-nice-nyah-nyah trend is just bratty teenies pissing in the communication pool purely because they can, and then whining when they get whapped for it just the way they should. (Ah, socialization at work.) But I can't believe that that accounts for all of it.
And if this is one of the most valuable and real arenas of interaction for many of us, then what on earth is the problem with not wandering around acting like a bitch? With, heavens forbid, exercising a little tact and restraint? The prevelance of assholes insisting that freedom of speech only applies to them insulting other people and getting their panties in a twist when anyone points out that they're acting like assholes does not truly puzzle me. It's just humans being humans. But the number of people who act like taking thirty seconds to frame their worlds politely is some dire human rights violation, and who argue this at vast length, and who otherwise seem like reasonably intelligent and socialized people... that does puzzle me. And that may be a fine distinction, between the two, but... meh.
Very nice. (Specifically in the manner of number 6.)
Picking up on what lysapadin was saying about people not being "real" enough to warrant courtesy, I think that they're also not "real" enough to threaten retribution for rude and petty behaviour. The feeling of anonymity on the net not only prevents a person from thinking he/she can hurt the other non-people with whom he/she interacts, but also that he/she can't really be held responsible for bad behavior--and therefore, he/she can't be hurt in return. There's no immediate threat of punishment like there is in real life situations, and I can't count the number of times I've seen people who prance around online essentially saying, "Can't catch me!"
It's a lot harder to be a shit-disturbing asshole to someone who might reach across a counter and slug you in the face (or otherwise chastise and humiliate you for acting like a moron) than it is to be a dick to someone who might report your isp (which may result in nothing) or sign you up for bestiality porn. It ends up feeling less like a matter of stunted empathy and more like a matter of having the perfect opportunity to get away with crap.
Of course, you mentioned socialisation, and most people are likely to back down after throwing a good hissy fit, but there are others who really don't care, and they don't respond to the will of the community, because, quite simply, they are in it for the 'mean' in the first place.
Oh, yeah. That makes me think of something someone said a few weeks back about sociopathic fandoms, and not wanting to be in one. In regard to HP, if I recall correctly. Because actively denying the mechanisms of socialization and communal-will-expression just about sums up sociopathy, and there sure is some of that going around.
I wonder if part of the problem isn't telling which of the positions you mention the offender is coming from. Because I can see a lot of people writing off even an attempt at chastizement as not worth it, if they think that most of the offenders really are... well, abusers that way. Really are taking advantage of the virtual environment to deliberately be cruel and malicious.
I think people don't want to admit that their internet correspondence is worth some courtesy because that would be somehow dorky, or it would reveal a dependence on the computer...okay, basically what the other commenters said. So.
Word, not wanting to admit computer people are real for fear of getting jerked around is weakness.
Now there's a thought. And it does resonate with the 'courtesy is wishy-washy/soft' thread that I keep seeing. *shakes head* And, of course, that's just self-perpetuating. *sighs*
I thought (here via metafandom) that bearing in mind the discussion was being framed in terms of nice vs mean, that people were asserting the benefits of being mean when they did mean honest (but that term had been denied them).
People who espouse the need to be nice can do so in a hypocritical manner that means being nice to your face and bitchy behind your back and against that 'mean' does have some moral advantage. I would rather know where I stood with someone than have our interactions being conducted in a false and hypocritical manner.
I've seen many a promising conversation peter out in a yahoo group because others, not involved, jump in from the sidelines saying that One person is being Mean and Hurting the Others feelings. If you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all is a phrase that, to me, leads to a stultifying and bland world in which no one says anything more controversial than "nice weather we're having here".
And someone is bound to manage to start wank about that.
Given the choice of being courteous or rude, I'd prefer courtesy but then we move on to another discussion about what is courteous because people's preferences on that vary hugely as well.
People who espouse the need to be nice can do so in a hypocritical manner that means being nice to your face and bitchy behind your back
This is most certainly true. I have not, however, seen any of the people who publicly espouse either niceness or kindness do so. The kind of people who I have personally seen behaving like that are exactly the ones who seem to take a certain pleasure in petty, spiteful behavior (that is, in being mean according to comon definition) all the time.
And so we're back to my point that everyone who is involved needs to define their terms. If anyone suggests that "nice" means "viciously misrepresenting oneself" then that person needs to be called on their attempt to shelter bad behavior behind a socially acceptable word. Similarly, though, embracing the word "mean" when what one really means is "honest" (and leaving aside, for now, the question of whether honesty in that situation was/is expressed courteously or meanly) is not doing the people who favor integrity and genuineness any good in the eyes of the community at large--who may well be going by common definitions and be deeply confused as to what's good about being mean.
*grins* And certainly, I agree there should be different standards for debate than for, say, commenting on art. That's why I favor courtesy, rather than a blanket policy of either niceness or kindness, myself.
I do think it's worth pointing out to everyone that the definition of "honest" includes "equitable and fair". That, I would say, is where honesty meets courtesy, and might give all of us a place to start.
Ah, the original post (http://www.livejournal.com/users/campfollower/947.html) that I saw on the topic, does make reference to nice girls confining their snarkiness to private places, which does carry a certain inference of a lack of honesty.
And I have seen some of the people commenting on the posts supporting the need for LJ to be a nicer / more polite place, and thought that they have been on occasion quite rude to and about others so I'm not entirely convinced of their bona fides.
Perhaps they are all going to turn over a new leaf and I am being overly cynical.
I also think, after several years on LJ, that there are some people for whom any disagreement from their opinion / tastes / views is threatening, no matter how courteously that dissent is phrased. The mere lack of agreement is enough to threaten their sense of themselves and their place in the world.
When I first started on LJ I thought of it as more of a diary as so few people were reading. Now, with a larger flist, I have to be more courteous not just to my flist but with an awareness of the flist of my flist.
*wry* I hear you on that one. Even when you sprinkle "personal opinion" and "private individual" all though a post, some people just can't deal with any gray shade between word/amen/etc. and 'you worthless idiot with no right to live'. Then, too, private versus public is a very strange thing on LJ.
*thoughtful* Though it might actually be one of the core issues in this whole ball of yarn. I do think there's merit in the idea that private behavior should have different standards for courtesy and... well, advisability, than public behavior. So I'm not in complete disagreement with the notion of keeping one's snarking private, nor do I think that automatically equates to backstabbing dishonesty. But when one never knows just how many people read a public personal journal, or who might be browsing their friends-friends list and find it, or who might have been unwisely included in, say, a private rant filter... then the question of what is private becomes pretty darn pointed.
*makes face* What I'd reall love to see is everyone exercising a little more basic judgement. As opposed to judgementalism. I expect I'm doomed to disappointment, but every sane, reasonable conversation makes me hope again. So thank you. ^_-
I want to gush excessively about your use of definitions here! Because, yes. (I'm sick, witness my articulacy or lack thereof.) It's such a shame that the shorthand of 'the cult of nice' and 'the cult of mean' has become so catchy, and how the argument - involving just enough commentators taking them at their most pejorative meaning - has become exhaustingly circular. It was good to be reminded of other, perhaps more pertinent words and made to consider them.
Good to hear you enjoyed my rambling! I'm a big fan of evolving language and meaning, but, really, a lot of these debates just strike me as sloppy. And I'm also a big fan of dictionaries. *grins*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot) wrote2006-01-07 02:43 pm
no subject
*wistful* I guess a sweeping policy of beating people over the head with this essay until they get it is out of the question?
In all seriousness, though, an excellent essay. It will never cease to baffle me how many people just don't seem to have the respect for whoever it is they're interacting with to show essential courtesy to them--which is to say, making the effort to be polite, and to show consideration for the other person's position.
I half-wonder if it's that, as the first link you posted notes, it's because people (especially online, but in some offline situations, too) just don't register that the other person is a human being--if it's a matter of either being so insulated by one's own self-centeredness, or by the medium of the internet, that the other person isn't "real". If someone isn't "real" to you, then making the effort to extend courtesy becomes even more troublesome.
(Vague parallel for offline interactions: how "real" is the person behind the counter, checking your groceries/making your mocha latte/taking the money for your fast food? Although there's a certain differential there...)
So, yeah. Word.
no subject
But then I think how many people in fandom, particularly, say that their online interaction is one of the most real, most valuable parts of their social life, and how does that fit in?
I can believe that a lot of the won't-be-nice-nyah-nyah trend is just bratty teenies pissing in the communication pool purely because they can, and then whining when they get whapped for it just the way they should. (Ah, socialization at work.) But I can't believe that that accounts for all of it.
And if this is one of the most valuable and real arenas of interaction for many of us, then what on earth is the problem with not wandering around acting like a bitch? With, heavens forbid, exercising a little tact and restraint? The prevelance of assholes insisting that freedom of speech only applies to them insulting other people and getting their panties in a twist when anyone points out that they're acting like assholes does not truly puzzle me. It's just humans being humans. But the number of people who act like taking thirty seconds to frame their worlds politely is some dire human rights violation, and who argue this at vast length, and who otherwise seem like reasonably intelligent and socialized people... that does puzzle me. And that may be a fine distinction, between the two, but... meh.
People. What are you gonna do?
no subject
Thank you, that was clearly, concisely, and excellently put.
I think I shall consider this, along with the posts by
no subject
no subject
Picking up on what
It's a lot harder to be a shit-disturbing asshole to someone who might reach across a counter and slug you in the face (or otherwise chastise and humiliate you for acting like a moron) than it is to be a dick to someone who might report your isp (which may result in nothing) or sign you up for bestiality porn. It ends up feeling less like a matter of stunted empathy and more like a matter of having the perfect opportunity to get away with crap.
Of course, you mentioned socialisation, and most people are likely to back down after throwing a good hissy fit, but there are others who really don't care, and they don't respond to the will of the community, because, quite simply, they are in it for the 'mean' in the first place.
Yay, fandom.
no subject
I wonder if part of the problem isn't telling which of the positions you mention the offender is coming from. Because I can see a lot of people writing off even an attempt at chastizement as not worth it, if they think that most of the offenders really are... well, abusers that way. Really are taking advantage of the virtual environment to deliberately be cruel and malicious.
*wry* Yay, fandom, indeed.
no subject
Word, not wanting to admit computer people are real for fear of getting jerked around is weakness.
no subject
no subject
People who espouse the need to be nice can do so in a hypocritical manner that means being nice to your face and bitchy behind your back and against that 'mean' does have some moral advantage. I would rather know where I stood with someone than have our interactions being conducted in a false and hypocritical manner.
I've seen many a promising conversation peter out in a yahoo group because others, not involved, jump in from the sidelines saying that One person is being Mean and Hurting the Others feelings. If you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all is a phrase that, to me, leads to a stultifying and bland world in which no one says anything more controversial than "nice weather we're having here".
And someone is bound to manage to start wank about that.
Given the choice of being courteous or rude, I'd prefer courtesy but then we move on to another discussion about what is courteous because people's preferences on that vary hugely as well.
no subject
This is most certainly true. I have not, however, seen any of the people who publicly espouse either niceness or kindness do so. The kind of people who I have personally seen behaving like that are exactly the ones who seem to take a certain pleasure in petty, spiteful behavior (that is, in being mean according to comon definition) all the time.
And so we're back to my point that everyone who is involved needs to define their terms. If anyone suggests that "nice" means "viciously misrepresenting oneself" then that person needs to be called on their attempt to shelter bad behavior behind a socially acceptable word. Similarly, though, embracing the word "mean" when what one really means is "honest" (and leaving aside, for now, the question of whether honesty in that situation was/is expressed courteously or meanly) is not doing the people who favor integrity and genuineness any good in the eyes of the community at large--who may well be going by common definitions and be deeply confused as to what's good about being mean.
*grins* And certainly, I agree there should be different standards for debate than for, say, commenting on art. That's why I favor courtesy, rather than a blanket policy of either niceness or kindness, myself.
I do think it's worth pointing out to everyone that the definition of "honest" includes "equitable and fair". That, I would say, is where honesty meets courtesy, and might give all of us a place to start.
no subject
And I have seen some of the people commenting on the posts supporting the need for LJ to be a nicer / more polite place, and thought that they have been on occasion quite rude to and about others so I'm not entirely convinced of their bona fides.
Perhaps they are all going to turn over a new leaf and I am being overly cynical.
I also think, after several years on LJ, that there are some people for whom any disagreement from their opinion / tastes / views is threatening, no matter how courteously that dissent is phrased. The mere lack of agreement is enough to threaten their sense of themselves and their place in the world.
When I first started on LJ I thought of it as more of a diary as so few people were reading. Now, with a larger flist, I have to be more courteous not just to my flist but with an awareness of the flist of my flist.
no subject
*thoughtful* Though it might actually be one of the core issues in this whole ball of yarn. I do think there's merit in the idea that private behavior should have different standards for courtesy and... well, advisability, than public behavior. So I'm not in complete disagreement with the notion of keeping one's snarking private, nor do I think that automatically equates to backstabbing dishonesty. But when one never knows just how many people read a public personal journal, or who might be browsing their friends-friends list and find it, or who might have been unwisely included in, say, a private rant filter... then the question of what is private becomes pretty darn pointed.
*makes face* What I'd reall love to see is everyone exercising a little more basic judgement. As opposed to judgementalism. I expect I'm doomed to disappointment, but every sane, reasonable conversation makes me hope again. So thank you. ^_-
no subject
Here via metafandom
Re: Here via metafandom