I love the period of reflection that comes to me around New Year's Day. This year I've made the decision to block agents of chaos and destruction as a way to maintain my mental health
This is somewhat unrelated, but... I've tended to dismiss the fairly common idea that tone can't be conveyed in writing (and on the internet) for the simple reason that we all "get" tone perfectly fine when immersed in a really good novel, but there IS some truth (not everyone is a good writer, and not everyone is a good reader, either) to it and the comment thread that was already here when I posted this probably illustrates that.
And I'm wondering if that doesn't "translate" into "real life" as well. All those kids who become convinced they are autistic, when they certainly wouldn't have been diagnosed 20-odd years ago (my daughter is one of them), what if all these online interactions have had the opposite effect, where they don't understand tone "in real life" because they're used to communicating in writing?
It's the same with concepts of what constitutes civilized. I think we all used to know what it was, and it usually started something like, "That's an interesting take, but the way I see it..." Civilized discussion never means no disagreement. It means being polite in the face of disagreement. If you wouldn't say it in a passionate pub discussion about politics with a coworker you really get along with on a Friday night, it's probably too much. I've been having discussions with my kids about contentious non-gender topics (like the death penalty and the meaning of happiness) every day because they need to develop those skills and they don't get the chance within their own generation, sadly.
Caveat: I didn't get to listen to the podcast where you discuss blocking because it's premium-only, but this sounded like an interesting thing to discuss anyway.
I fully agree with you. This line stands out to me as I think it's very valuable for your kids:" I've been having discussions with my kids about contentious non-gender topics (like the death penalty and the meaning of happiness) every day because they need to develop those skills and they don't get the chance within their own generation, sadly."
Oh, I agree with that! I think if someone behaves in a way that would make you want to avoid that person at all costs in person, there's no reason to give that person your time on the internet, either. And you do do that by reading messages, even if you don't respond. It's not about being thin-skinned. It's about choosing how you spend your time.
Hi Stella, I think the problem is with how we define "civilized interaction" and how we make assumption about the other person's honesty. Where exactly is the line between being passionate / wording your opinions strongly and being uncivilized? Isn't it different for everyone, depending on your level of tolerance? How do we know if a person is being dishonest? Let's say, for example, I think that people who say "I absolutely don't care if my child is straight or gay" are being somewhat dishonest - and you think I am being uncivilized and homophobic. Would I even get a chance to explain why I hold such opinion if you immediately block me? Of course, this is your space and you are free to define your rules as you see fit but are you not concerned that people will tiptoe around, afraid to express different opinions because of the way you assess their civility and make assumptions about their honesty?
Where did you get the idea that I think that it is 'uncivilized and homophobic' if you say that? I have never suggested this. Why do you think I would immediately block you if you say this? If I have blocked you it would not have been for this. It could, however, easily be for leaps of logic that don't make sense. As I say in the clip it is a time vs time issue. I block people who waste my time and leaps of logic are often a time waster.
I said "for example", as a hypothetical. My point was that there is no way to know what you (or anybody else) personally consider to be "dishonest" or "uncivilized" so the threat of being blocked will make people much more reluctant to express differences in opinions.
On the other hand, maybe it will encourage other people to behave in a more civilised manner. Either way, that's fine with me. There are so many people commenting that any one of us can only respond to a limited number. I'm placing my limits around what I view as uncivilised behaviour, you 're free to place your limits wherever you want. We do need to limit though, as online interaction can be uttterly exhausting and a time suck.
This is somewhat unrelated, but... I've tended to dismiss the fairly common idea that tone can't be conveyed in writing (and on the internet) for the simple reason that we all "get" tone perfectly fine when immersed in a really good novel, but there IS some truth (not everyone is a good writer, and not everyone is a good reader, either) to it and the comment thread that was already here when I posted this probably illustrates that.
And I'm wondering if that doesn't "translate" into "real life" as well. All those kids who become convinced they are autistic, when they certainly wouldn't have been diagnosed 20-odd years ago (my daughter is one of them), what if all these online interactions have had the opposite effect, where they don't understand tone "in real life" because they're used to communicating in writing?
It's the same with concepts of what constitutes civilized. I think we all used to know what it was, and it usually started something like, "That's an interesting take, but the way I see it..." Civilized discussion never means no disagreement. It means being polite in the face of disagreement. If you wouldn't say it in a passionate pub discussion about politics with a coworker you really get along with on a Friday night, it's probably too much. I've been having discussions with my kids about contentious non-gender topics (like the death penalty and the meaning of happiness) every day because they need to develop those skills and they don't get the chance within their own generation, sadly.
Caveat: I didn't get to listen to the podcast where you discuss blocking because it's premium-only, but this sounded like an interesting thing to discuss anyway.
I fully agree with you. This line stands out to me as I think it's very valuable for your kids:" I've been having discussions with my kids about contentious non-gender topics (like the death penalty and the meaning of happiness) every day because they need to develop those skills and they don't get the chance within their own generation, sadly."
This is a free link to the 3 minutes clip of us speaking about blocking https://x.com/OsborneInk/status/1732123836210921538?s=20
Oh, I agree with that! I think if someone behaves in a way that would make you want to avoid that person at all costs in person, there's no reason to give that person your time on the internet, either. And you do do that by reading messages, even if you don't respond. It's not about being thin-skinned. It's about choosing how you spend your time.
Hi Stella, I think the problem is with how we define "civilized interaction" and how we make assumption about the other person's honesty. Where exactly is the line between being passionate / wording your opinions strongly and being uncivilized? Isn't it different for everyone, depending on your level of tolerance? How do we know if a person is being dishonest? Let's say, for example, I think that people who say "I absolutely don't care if my child is straight or gay" are being somewhat dishonest - and you think I am being uncivilized and homophobic. Would I even get a chance to explain why I hold such opinion if you immediately block me? Of course, this is your space and you are free to define your rules as you see fit but are you not concerned that people will tiptoe around, afraid to express different opinions because of the way you assess their civility and make assumptions about their honesty?
Where did you get the idea that I think that it is 'uncivilized and homophobic' if you say that? I have never suggested this. Why do you think I would immediately block you if you say this? If I have blocked you it would not have been for this. It could, however, easily be for leaps of logic that don't make sense. As I say in the clip it is a time vs time issue. I block people who waste my time and leaps of logic are often a time waster.
I said "for example", as a hypothetical. My point was that there is no way to know what you (or anybody else) personally consider to be "dishonest" or "uncivilized" so the threat of being blocked will make people much more reluctant to express differences in opinions.
On the other hand, maybe it will encourage other people to behave in a more civilised manner. Either way, that's fine with me. There are so many people commenting that any one of us can only respond to a limited number. I'm placing my limits around what I view as uncivilised behaviour, you 're free to place your limits wherever you want. We do need to limit though, as online interaction can be uttterly exhausting and a time suck.