Contributor
|
| 33 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve been thinking about these forums and how we communicate with one another. I want this post to be more than just a general call for civil discourse. I’d like this thread to be a toolbox to help us figure out how to communicate. These are just my ideas, and I'd like to hear yours as well.
The forums would be a bland place if we all agreed with one another all the time. We need ways to disagree with one another without resorting to personal attacks or vitriol.
★ ---- ★ ---- ★ ---- ★
We're all real people under these aliases, and we're part of a greater gaming community that often brings us together for conventions and other events. Knowing this, I try to imagine the real people that I'm responding to, every time I post.
I keep asking myself some key questions: if I were the person asking a question on these forums, what would I want to know? How would I want to be addressed? What would I find helpful? So I start with the paradigm that newcomers are friends who I want to feel welcome. I try to interpret their words in the best possible light, and I treat them like friends unless they prove to be otherwise. Acknowledge where they are coming from, and empathize with the problems they’ve stated.
If you really want others to listen to you I think that it helps to have a high signal to noise ratio. Be someone who’s worth reading. I’m not saying that we all have to be serious and completely on topic all the time. Filks, jokes and other entertaining frivolity are important to help us laugh together and to lighten the mood. Still, I do try to keep the signal up when I communicate on these forums. What do I mean by signal, over noise?
Noise:
Personal attacks on other posters
Repeating the same post / argument over and over in the same thread
Inflammatory tone or baiting
Being unwilling to consider or dismissive of other viewpoints / perspectives in a debate
Signal:
Calm tone — even when expressing dismay
Respectful and Considerate of other posters / points of view
Include details of problems or issues
Provide links, quotes, history, insights
Helpfulness — answering newcomer’s questions patiently
Offer potential solutions or ideas
Fun analyses — acknowledging potential blindspots or missing information.
Clear expression of thoughts
Willingness to change your mind sometimes in light of new information.
Be willing to listen. If you want to be heard - listen.
I think that one of the reasons people repeat themselves over and over in a forum argument is that they want to feel heard. One way that I like to handle this is by doing a summation (but snipping the vitriol and personal attacks out) of all the viewpoints expressed in the thread so far. Simply letting people know that their viewpoint was seen can be very calming. The summation also provides a high-signal post (without insults) that allows people on both sides of the argument to see the other person’s POV.
If a thread that had a good conversation suddenly becomes toxic, don’t be afraid to redirect with a new observation, question, or something else to make the conversation productive again.
Also, if you want positive posts, put them out there. Compliment a fellow forumite who wrote something cool. Share your personal perspective. Put out the kind of posts you want to read.
If you are super angry, or realize that you might be posting something that might get deleted later, take a deep breath and stay away for a bit. People have been wrong on the internet before. They will be wrong on the internet again. If you wait, one of two things will happen.
1) The problematic posts will be dealt with by the mods, and have gone away. Win!
2) The argument will still be there, and you can make a better response now that you’ve thought it through.
That’s my list, so far.
What’s yours?
Hmm
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a very nice thread, HMM.
I think it helps to remember that no matter what you say, the other person is probably at least going to read your message and respond. Even if you own them really, really hard. Arguments don't end with sick burns--they just go on, and on, and on, and on, and escalating things really just makes the argument likely to drag on longer.
So, like, remember that. There's a time and place for a sick burn, but generally speaking, that place isn't in any civil argument. All you're doing by flaming or baiting them is ensuring that you'll have to keep talking to this person even longer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As usual, HMM has a gem of a post here. I think that we can all do a lot to recognize that differing opinions are common.
One thing that I know made a difference to me early on was attending PaizoCon, and actually meeting some of my early forum heroes and anti-heroes. It definitely showed me that the anonymity of the forum up to that point had affected they ways i saw other posters.
EDIT: I think that Paizo has to start dealing with recurrent bad actors, though... that kind of behaviour makes it harder to respect certain posters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Start with evidence or an area of agreement.
Judge the evidence based on the quality of the evidence.
Rationally advance it from point A to point B to Point C (leap as little as possible)
Judge the argument based on the quality of the argument.
Reach a rational conclussion.
Try the same argument again with a different or similar position. If you can get a wonky result with similar logic, consider changing your position. If an argument gets different values for different results of I it needs some adjustment.
Let the idea get criticized fairly. Good ideas can take fair criticism. Bad ones cannot.
Sick burns happen but are a spice, not e vegetable. They go with an argument but do not make an argument.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the vast majority of sick burns detract from their arguments. They make it less likely the reader will be able to emotionally detach themselves enough to engage with the argument itself. They are fun, but they run counter to any ideals of "rational discourse". They're themselves an emotional indulgence that mostly exist to let the writer feel clever or smug, which is not much better than feeling angry.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to emphasize a couple of HMM's points and add a couple.
To emphasize : Be as calm as you possibly can, be as polite as you possibly can, be as nice and reasonable as you possibly can. Try as hard as you possibly can to NOT insult the other person (ESPECIALLY when they REALLY deserve it :-) :-)). Disagree with their arguments but do it nicely. Like Hmm, I'm going to explicity make an exception for deliberate hate speech.
And I'll add:
Try to be as clear as you possibly can. Use reasonable English constructs, try to use decent grammar, try to avoid spelling mistakes. Try to write coherently. If you're not particularly fluent in English because its not your first language point that out (it really does help)
When you're replying to somebody, quote enough of the person you're replying to so that others can follow your argument. Remember that by the time you hit return 10 more posts might intervene. Do NOT assume that the context is going to be clear. Using ... to remove extraneous text is acceptable but you should make it clear where you have done so. If you have to summarize anothers arguments please try as hard as you possibly can to be intellectually honest in that summary, don't create strawmen, don't editorialize, etc.
When you're wrong or were unclear ADMIT TO IT. Pretty much NOTHING contributes more to a good discussion than a person admitting where they were wrong, where they misspoke, where there opinion was changed. And pretty much NOTHING hurts a discussion more than when a person refuses to admit that they were wrong, coming up with more and more excuses and bizarre explanations. When you move the goal posts, admit that you're conceding one point and admit that you're now moving the goal posts.
Admitting that you're wrong will NOT make us think the less of you. In almost all cases, it will make us think a lot MORE of you.
just before or after posting go back an re-read what you posted to make sure that you like what it says and how it is said. Make it clearer if necessary. Remove personal attacks or things that could be considered to be personal attacks
Edit: While I try to stick to my own guidelines above I'll admit that I've failed every single one on occassion. I'm imperfect and don't always measure up to my own standards. That human imperfection doesn't mean they're not good standards. Emotion sometimes overrides over things. The proper thing to do is to try and have that happen as infrequently as possible and to own up to ones failures when it DOES happen.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the vast majority of sick burns detract from their arguments. They make it less likely the reader will be able to emotionally detach themselves enough to engage with the argument itself. They are fun, but they run counter to any ideals of "rational discourse". They're themselves an emotional indulgence that mostly exist to let the writer feel clever or smug, which is not much better than feeling angry.
Oh, a really cool concept I half-learned about recently is the idea that you should ideally aim to always make it as easy as possible for the other person to "self-soothe" when reading your arguments.
Nobody likes being wrong. You're trying to convince someone they might be. Cushioning your words may be less fun--not to mention how emotionally draining it can be at times--but by making it easier for the reader to self-soothe, you improve the odds of actually getting them to consider what you're saying from a place of objectivity.
"I get where you're coming from" isn't always appropriate, but where it is, use it. It almost always strengthens your position to indicate you understand theirs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who often has not inconsiderable difficulty engaging and communicating with others, I've found that it can help a lot when we examine our own preconceptions. The more we engage with a person, especially one we've had disagreements with, the more we both consciously and subconsciously entrench our own preconceptions of how we interact with that person. This can and does lead to perfectly avoidable escalation and conflict.
It is laughably common, in my observation, that a conversation devolves (sometimes with utterly startling speed) into people entrenching themselves completely, making little to no attempt at listening to or understanding another perspective. It's understandable-we all do it to some degree or another, we all have ego that will sometimes take control of the pilot seat. If we recognize that and take steps to approach a disagreement in a more neutral fashion (not completely neutral, mind you) and clarify our biases and preconceptions, it can lead to much smoother discourse.
We're all real people under these aliases, and we're part of a greater gaming community that often brings us together for conventions and other events. Knowing this, I try to imagine the real people that I'm responding to, every time I post.
This is where it all starts and ends, though. It's of utmost importance to approach a conversation with the understanding that you're communicating with real, actual people. It's too easy in online conversation to reduce a person down to their politics, their morality, their beliefs; all of which are heavily influenced by our perspective built upon whichever preconceptions we've ascribed to these people in our minds. Sometimes people will do this deliberately, and if that's shown to be the case, all I can say is that it's not worth engaging with that person until they can approach a discussion in earnest.
It helps to evaluate how we approach a conversation and how we allow our biases to influence our actions.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, a really cool concept I half-learned about recently is the idea that you should ideally aim to always make it as easy as possible for the other person to "self-soothe" when reading your arguments.
Reading some about this recently too, from cult deprogrammers in relation to people sticking by scams that are killing them because humans will fo nearly anything to avoid social death. To sometimes frightening extremes.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'd like to add regarding item three: I know that I've been guilty of repeating myself several times, but it was never because I wanted to be heard. It was every time because I felt the point I was trying to make was misrepresented by the poster reacting to it. Not necessarily misrepresented deliberately, I'm not talking about troll behaviour here.
Summation can help here, because it makes it easier to identify the details that might have been misunderstood by the recipient. What also can help is just asking if you understood everything correctly, especially when it is something that might make your blood boil.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Calm isn't better for free.
Well worded doesn't always imply better content.
Lot's of the worst stuff ever done by people to people was beautifully argued.
Maybe I am just used to a higher cultural tolerance for swearing, and combative friendliness, but I often worry that even totally well intentioned calls for cleaner / clearer discourse is used against exhausted victims who snap back more than it is applied to loquacious creeps.
I don't think, or even stronger I'm fully sure that's not the intention of this thread. And I think it's content is great in a setting where we feel most people want to engage in good faith. That's not a given on the boards at the moment, and reasoned debate requires a degree of safety.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I am just used to a higher cultural tolerance for swearing, and combative friendliness, but I often worry that even totally well intentioned calls for cleaner / clearer discourse is used against exhausted victims who snap back more than it is applied to loquacious creeps.
It is. Constantly. It's been used a lot on this very subforum lately. That's not HMM's game, though, and she's entirely right--all else being equal, it is always better to try to keep things friendly and civil. Consider the other person's feelings when making your arguments.
"All else being equal" obviously doesn't include if they're being abusive or toxic. But we have a Flag button--and TOZ-brand indirect snark--for a reason. :)
I appreciate you acknowledging this, though. There are times where being fully sweet and polite sort of just helps normalize aberrant behavior.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I am just used to a higher cultural tolerance for swearing, and combative friendliness, but I often worry that even totally well intentioned calls for cleaner / clearer discourse is used against exhausted victims who snap back more than it is applied to loquacious creeps.It is. Constantly. It's been used a lot on this very subforum lately. That's not HMM's game, though, and she's entirely right--all else being equal, it is always better to try to keep things friendly and civil. Consider the other person's feelings when making your arguments.
"All else being equal" obviously doesn't include if they're being abusive or toxic. But we have a Flag button--and TOZ-brand indirect snark--for a reason. :)
I appreciate you acknowledging this, though. There are times where being fully sweet and polite sort of just helps normalize aberrant behavior.
I hear and understand you and realize that the cost for you must be higher than I realize (yes, I know how silly that sounds). For what its worth, you (and some others, but it is you that I am currently replying to :-)) do a marvelous job of trying to be sweet and polite most of the time and I really do think it helps a lot. It is most certainly appreciated by me at least (I strongly suspect I'm speaking for others as well).
What I see when I look at the toxic conversations is a few shining examples trying hard to stay above the sludge. And, as a result, they (and you are most definitely part of the they) are absolutely "winning" the argument. Obviously you're not reaching the transphobic <blorts>, but you ARE reaching many other people.
I can only imagine the emotional effort it takes for you to stay pleasant and calm. You're certainly entitled to rage and I don't blame you (or others) when you DO lose it. It is most certainly your right to decide not to be calm, to not put up with the nonsense any longer. And I very much doubt that I'd have the moral courage to stand for as much nonsense as you do while staying as calm as you do. But I stand by my position that, assuming you can still stomach it, staying calm is the most effective way of debating.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great idea for a post HMM. just one suggestion could you repost a copy of it about 2 months ago.
lots of great tools in HMMs toolbox
One I'd add is when there is room to interpret something someone else said don't start by assuming the worst possible interpretation, (unless you are in the game of thrones.)
Humor can be a great way to lighten or soften the tone of a conversation but on the internet, it's more likely to be taken the wrong way. (that's one I've been learning the hard way.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was on a Discord server until early this Summer that had exceptionally noxious perspectives about people and how they should be treated/recognized.
Their main 'weapon' to force the conversation to 'their' way of Thinking was to attack anyone that had an emotional reaction to commentary, even while they were likewise diving deep into the emotional morass.
The hypocrisy level was astounding, and not in a Good way.
After the second attempt at trying to get the server to recognize folks of different genders and sexuality I left.
And then I found out that it was effectively being used as a recruiting ground for an even more noxious group of people, the details of which will remain undisclosed for concerns of violating the politics/religious discussion points
So while it is good to remain calm, and get the point across, I'm kind of wary of a 'sunshine and lollipops' approach if I don't know a person, because I've seen it weaponized to marginalize minorities, gender identities, and other things that didn't fit the 'Good' that a certain group likes.
I'd like to be more trusting, but after having been burned and still recovering from it, I'm... wary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This - is amazing!! I feel like this is sooooo worth talking about. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts HMM - and so well said!
I’ll throw this tactic out there - asking people to rephrase themselves. As a rule, I try not to say what I think you are saying - I’d rather ask if you are saying what I think you are. It gives folks a chance to walk their position back a bit.
Examples include “What you are saying comes across to me as xxxx. Is that what you meant?” If you two disagree, this approach can help you both focus on listening to each other.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
So are you two gonna arm wrestle for the avatar or
So are you two gonna arm wrestle for the avatar or...declare yourselves twins, separated at birth!
Rather easy with tengu
So are you two gonna arm wrestle for the avatar or...declare yourselves twins, separated at birth!
I guess the only way to find out is if they both have a mother named Martha.
Or we could drag them both to the Maury Show, but then you'll have to pay for airfare and that can get expensive with wolves.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the sake of being tongue-in-beak, are we being profiled because people have a hard time telling us apart? :>
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the sake of being tongue-in-beak, are we being profiled because people have a hard time telling us apart? :>
Just getting antsy about the attempted murder...
;)
Just when you think you're near the bottom of the misunderstanding pile and you can finally go forward it turns out there's yet another turtle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excellent as always HMM.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In peace corps training we they had us play a card game. 25 people in a room divided into groups of fourish given a piece of paper with a list of rules on it. Every 5 minutes or so you switch groups. No talking allowed.
It went about where you would expect. Every table had been handed different rules to demonstrate something about different rules for different societies. So on table 1 you were playing war , on table 2 it was low card wins, on table 3 it was spade>heart? diamond, club etc.
Some people actually got flustered, some swapped for rock paper scissors. I think my group wound up making a pretty impressive card tower.
But you have to realize that different groups are playing with different rules or it looks like people have gone crazy. There are different fundamental assumptions that people walk into a conversation with. When you don';t just disagree with the facts, but with the rules, you have to figure that our or you just wind up talking past people.
It can be very hard to explain water to a fish.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When those 'different rules' are weaponized and used to target other groups is where things begin to fall apart.
Some religions, for example, do not believe in women or men having spirits that do not match their bodies, and attempt to shove their beliefs on others because their religion dictates that they MUST.
Other religions accept that bodies may not have the right spirit in them, and may even try to accommodate/help that person -- yet mixing these two pools of belief together goes about as well as oil and water.
Then someone comes along to shake things up and throw a match into it.
And that's just from a religious perspective.
We're not allowed to delve into politics here, but who a person is has become political, and unfortunately because folks whose bodies don't match what some political bodies want, they get attacked.
In the case of some of the above mentioned religions, I can't help but wonder if their deity showed up today with a spirit wrongly shaped for their body would think about them.
|
Contributor
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, a really cool concept I half-learned about recently is the idea that you should ideally aim to always make it as easy as possible for the other person to "self-soothe" when reading your arguments.
Nobody likes being wrong. You're trying to convince someone they might be. Cushioning your words may be less fun--not to mention how emotionally draining it can be at times--but by making it easier for the reader to self-soothe, you improve the odds of actually getting them to consider what you're saying from a place of objectivity.
"I get where you're coming from" isn't always appropriate, but where it is, use it. It almost always strengthens your position to indicate you understand theirs.
This is such an excellent point, Kobold Cleaver. This is part of what I was trying to get at with the idea that you treat people as friends until proven otherwise. Empathy is important - it aids communication, understanding and helps builds bridges.
So I put myself in the shoes of these new writers. Would I have felt similarly excluded, three years ago? Oh, yes. What would I have wanted to know back then? I realized that just about anyone writing for Paizo Infinite likely also wants to freelance for Paizo. So I told them about how to solicit freelance gigs, approach developers, and use some of the work they were creating for infinite as samples of their existing work.
This changed the conversation completely, because instead of saying, "This door is locked for a very good reason," I showed them how to unlock the door. I also told them I wanted to hear about their progress and that I was looking forward to sharing a Table of Contents with them someday.
★ ---- ★ ---- ★ ---- ★
I think that another way to help bridge empathy in the other direction is to share your own personal story where appropriate. Take an idea from the abstract to the specific, which can help those reading your posts to understand where you are coming from. This empathy thing works best when you can get it to work in multiple directions!
Hmm
|
Contributor
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
But at the same time, don't assume that someone who isn't be calm enough is necessarily wrong or bad.
[snip]
This is more on how to read than how to post, I guess, but I think that's at least as important.
I agree, Thejeff. This is another part of empathy. When someone is upset or frustrated, ask yourself why they are upset or frustrated before assuming that they are an unreasonable person. Taking that step to understand their issue and why it's a problem can help you and the other person reach some clarity and understanding.
Still, aiming for calmer discourse for yourself when you post is a good goal. I know It's not always possible. I have personally averaged one rant every two years on these forums (over thousands of posts.) Because I have a reputation for being a calm and peaceful presence on these boards, the few rants that I have indulged in have had far more impact than they would have otherwise. I think my readers thought: 'Holy crap, Hmm is on the warpath, this MUST be serious!'
Hmm
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to be more trusting, but after having been burned and still recovering from it, I'm... wary.
Fair enough. I'm lucky enough that I've never been in a cesspit anywhere near that bad (and as a white hetero cis-male etc etc etc I'm less aware of the subtly bad environments and dog whistles) I'm quite sure that if I had I'd be less optimistic about sunshine and lollipops.
But to emphasize what you yourself pointed out, sunshine and lollipops are a good tactic quote often and they often DO work when the environment isn't too, too toxic.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, Thejeff. This is another part of empathy. When someone is upset or frustrated, ask yourself why they are upset or frustrated before assuming that they are an unreasonable person. Taking that step to understand their issue and why it's a problem can help you and the other person reach some clarity and understanding.
I can't favorite this post enough. At the end of the day, you can only account for your own behavior. There have been plenty of times I've seen someone behave a bit rudely and not directly engaged because I understood they were coming from a place of exhaustion and fear, that they didn't feel safe on the forums and were getting defensive as a result. It's a deliberate choice on my part to not risk derailing discussion by calling out somebody who is probably just in pain and not picking their words as careful as they might right now.
It's disappointing to then see five other people jumping out to pick a fight with that person over tone.
|
Contributor
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to include this post from Tonya from another thread:
One of my end goals here with this community-provided Communication Tool Box is to help relieve some of the pressure on the Paizo's overworked team of moderators. The more of us that use these tools, the easier the job becomes for the Moderators.
Let's face it. If you are reading this thread, you are likely a forum regular. You may be someone who posts a lot. The impact each of us makes to these boards is significant. By helping calm down heated conversations or by raising the signal to noise ratio, we can be part of the solution.
Hmm
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I do want to say this up front, and it's going to be hard for some people to hear but that's why I think I should honestly say it: Yes, I am kind of applying different expectations to trans people right now (aside from myself). And before anybody is tempted to explain to me how this is actually anti-equality, or anti-free speech, or shows that I am a total double-standards-applying hypocrite, consider that the arguments you're about to make may have already occurred to me, and that it is possible to come to a different conclusion from yours while being fully aware of the same information and concepts.
Transphobic behavior, or the potential for transphobic behavior, is inherently threatening to trans people by definition. It becomes harder to relax, to talk about issues freely, to even enjoy using the website. There has been a lot of transphobic behavior on the forums lately. There have been a lot of people who don't act like they much care about being perceived as transphobic on the forums lately. There have been a lot of bad faith actors who use the exact same phrasings and arguments as certain good faith actors who've been starting arguments all over the subforum lately. Mistakes are inevitable.
Obviously, this isn't to say that trans people don't still need to be good community members or that they can never be wrong. It's more about acknowledging nuance before I rush to condemn someone's behavior or start an argument about something that isn't very important.
It is possible to be technically correct about something and still be wrong for starting an argument about it in the wrong place at the wrong time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aw, geez, I can already tell I'll probably regret posting that. I'm not gonna argue about it on this thread or in DMs. Read it in good faith and I don't think there'll be any need.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
KC, my favorite button appears to be broken, I can only hit it once or it removes the favorite.
Should I try to contact Tech Support?
think the site is having a few issues, I can't post to the thread where my 3pp's latest book is up for sale...sounds like a wait it out sorta moment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We sometimes don't know words, and it is painful when we have those words (which were taught to us by a family member) attacked and we don't know why they're being attacked.
This is not something new.
It's not 'woke' culture.
My grandmother taught me some HORRIBLE words in relation to things when I was growing up, and I was at a grocery store with my mom .
I commented on a particular food product using the term my grandmother had used.
One could have heard the pin drop from halfway across the store.
"WHAT did you just say?"
"*redacted*"
I didn't know what was wrong, I was very young and using the term that I THOUGHT was okay.
So I repeated myself.
When I got home -- and that trip home from shopping was downright glacial.
And then my mom explained to me at length why it was bad, why it shouldn't be used, and how to be a better person.
This wasn't recently. This was in 1982!
When people attempt to do the same for things like transphobia or the like, that initial reaction occurs (it seems) but when folks attempt to step to education, the education gets attacked.
How can there be education if it feels like no one wants to learn?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
KC, MadScientist; Thanks for sharing this (painful) perspective of your reality, I will endeavor to consider these challenges and perspectives in any conversation going forward (and stay out where inappropriate).
I admit I am also guilty of the rainbows and lollipops view of reality. Being a cisgendered man makes you less likely to encounter (or even see) these challenges. Also living in a progressive country, with universal healthcare (which does pay for gender confirmation surgery), and working in a very international and diverse environment sometimes can give a (far) too rosy outlook on the state of the world, and your challenges feel almost dystopian and unreal because of that. To me it painful to realize how bad it can be, and indeed that while for most of us it makes sense to assess intent, you don’t have that “luxury”.
Still that painful reality should not stop us (well me) from aiming to do better, and to indeed show more empathy.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that everyone has a right to express their good-faith opinion here, provided they aren't bullying others or making the space feel unsafe or hostile to marginalized groups. Those are two pretty big caveats! I even think a cis person is allowed to express that they don't think something was transphobic, provided they still acknowledge that they made someone uncomfortable, show that they're listening and trying to understand the viewpoints being shared with them, and pursue a tone of gentle humility, aware that they are not the best judge of whether something was transphobic. Additionally, if they can instead take the L, recognizing that proving their "innocence" isn't really the most important issue and isn't worth contributing to the burnout and exhaustion of trans posters, that's usually the best course of action.
If multiple trans posters are calling you out, it's time to apply the brakes, because that's a lot of better-informed perspectives all agreeing on the same thing.
Not everyone's going to agree with me on this, to be fair, and that's totally valid. I personally don't like policing who can criticize what because I think it tends to catch people in the crossfires--if you say that cis men can't talk about an issue at all, what happens to closeted or unhatched trans women who have opinions to share? It's sort of like the Helicopter Story incident, for those aware of that sad affair.
But humility is important. Self-awareness is important. A cis person commenting on trans issues is like an out-of-towner commenting on town gossip: even if you think you're well-informed, sweetie, you're not from around here, you don't know which points we've already heard many times over, and there's a really good chance you're making an ass of yourself if you aren't careful and respectful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think, not to speak for Tonya, a "less" was dropped out of there. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either that or Tonya thinks the moderators need a real challenge. >:)
Thank you to HMM for this thread. I appreciate the suggestions and use of them will make moderation difficult. *supervillain cackles and pets a white Persian cat in her lap*
Look what you frickin' did to frickin' Mr. Bigglesworth!