Disagree with me without attacking. Listen to why I have a point of view and don't judge me immoral or an idiot for being wrong.
i dunno how youre getting from if youd waited literally two months for your ban to be over you wouldnt have been permabanned to you shoulda just been meaner im not seeing the logical connection here
It seems to me that this is the kind of communication that keeps breaking down. To an outside observer, it seems that you are rolling up several assumptions into one step, and then responding to the end point - when other people need to go one hop at a time, and often in very different directions to you. As a result, where you end up is not the same place they would have ended up, and there's a disconnect between what you're saying and what they're thinking. There's an old comedy sketch about a man who goes to borrow his neighbour's lawnmower. He knocks on the door, and while waiting for the neighbour to answer, he imagines the outcome of borrowing it. Perhaps he brings it back late, perhaps it gets damaged. There'd be an argument, leading to a fight and a lifelong vendetta between the two houses. Everything would be terrible, they'd be mortal enemies and he'd wish more than anything that he'd never borrowed a lawnmower from this terrible person. The neighbour opens the door, smiling... and the man screams "I never wanted your stupid lawnmower anyway!" and stomps off. It seems that a lot of people find themselves in the position of that neighbour when they hear things like the part I quoted. By phrasing things like 'I should have screamed...' as un-hedged statements of fact, you're leaving most of your audience in the dust. I get that it's rhetorical/sarcastic, but most people will tend to read it as bald, face-value statements of what you actually ought to have done, instead of the implied statement two or three levels down from there - proving your point by showing the absurdity of where your opponent's position leads to. This is a habit I have had to train myself out of - seebs will testify to that one. (well, that it it was a habit, not necessarily that I've trained myself out of it). People don't get it and never will. It doesn't work, and you can't do checkmate-in-three in debate with other people. It's frustrating as hell. If you want people to end up on the same page as you, you need to unpack each step and show your workings, step by laborious step. By doing so, you'll also reduce the number of mis-reads you make about other people's motivations - if you assume they understand you three steps ahead when they actually don't, you'll hit a lot of conflict when they respond at right-angles to what you thought was perfectly clear.
Yeah I feel like I should reiterate that it would be good for everybody if this conversation (and all conversations involving Athol) stopped using analogies. My reasoning is this: analogies are unhelpful for overly-axiomatic, black and white, and extreme thinking. Athol has demonstrated a pattern of this type of thinking. Her comments on the racism thread are an example of this: she has said that the singular message from that multi-page thread was that only racists notice race. That is not an accurate summary of that entire thread, but it is an axiom that can be used in making extreme judgements. (Extreme in the sense of taking an extreme stance on a subject, without leaving room for nuance or complexity.) Other similar examples of this type of thinking, and where it’s mucked things up, is the dog analogy. The dog analogy ended up getting used as fodder for more extreme thinking about retaliation and it’s “goodness.” I know that analogies can be useful in explaining things. But in this case, because of how these conversations have gone on the past, I think it is important to maintain focus on specifics and real situations. It is more difficult to turn particularities into extremes.
I'm just now getting to catch up on this thread. We did put you on post mod without asking you. We told you that we thought it would be helpful. You agreed to try it. You would have (and will) remain on post mod regardless of whether you want(ed) to. (Note this is not saying that you will stay on post mod forever. Just that the decision probably isn't going to take your want into account) Consent has nothing to do with post mod, and that framing is disingenuous. That second part is just untrue. I never finished my convo with you because Life Happened on my end. However, the mods have tried and tried to help you and explain why some of your posts would not get through post mod, but there is too much of a communication barrier. Saying that we didn't try is untrue. For the record I think you were trying on your end too.
I have yet to see something worded in a way such that you would consider it "disagreeing without attacking you." I can listen to why you have a point of view, but I will still disagree with it and experience tells me that you will interpret it as an attack. Can you think of a way that I could disagree with you and your point of view without it seeming like I'm attacking you?
I would strongly suggest putting off trying to debug and teach really fundamental communication things until athol has significant clean time. I can see many people getting frustrated and fed up, and like I said before, nothing is going to stick while she's still in active addiction. Hell, this stuff is too much for early recovery, even.
How about people labelling me the abuser and not seeing that the PPC did anything wrong? How about labelling me a bigot and an antisemite before bothering to explain dogwhistles?
The question you are answering isn’t the question that Allyssa asked. The question Allyssa asked was, “How can I disagree with you in a way you won’t feel attacked?” The question you answered was, “When were you attacked?” Given what Beldaran said just after Allyssa’s post, and the fact that Allyssa agreed with Beldaran’s response, you are likely not obligated to answer Allyssa’s question at this time.
Okay, I gave examples on what not to do. How about making sure we're on the same page during an argument before the attacks happen. I'm pretty sure I've typed that here multiple times. To add to that, the disagreement should come with a reason, which also helps with the same page. If we're disagreeing about something because we're using different premises, it really breaks down.
Didn't I answer that yesterday? Here's an example I just stumbled on while looking for attacks about being on a sub that they thought was about hating fat people for being fat. I had explained the exact opposite, and she insisted that what was on my mind was wrong. It wasn't until later in her post that maybe she questioned that she misunderstood, instead of going back and making that the head of the post.
people keep saying that they fucked up too there have been numerous comments about yeah, there was a big communication disconnect and they could definitely have wronged you! but that still doesn't justify what you did! honest question: are you just not reading what people are saying?
i told you why that was happening in the dm because you keep writing things like they are fact. if you do not qualify that you do not believe them, it will look like you do because that's how the words you used worked. i gave you examples of how not to do this and suggest you check each post for them before submitting it into the queue.
And now they're letting Etan say harmful things to me that I can't say what needs to be said. Lovely.
You've had the problems pointed out, and yet again, you're ignoring Etansel's request that you stop bringing them up in every goddamn conversation when you have a thread already RIGHT. THERE. THIS POST WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED THERE.
Then you should have posted these words. For chrissake. This isn't nearly as hard as you are determined to make it.
