tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post7326126793065432438..comments2024-03-17T18:44:03.058+11:00Comments on Lazy Luddite Log: Only AnnoyingDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-81698858504144220252015-11-17T11:19:46.852+11:002015-11-17T11:19:46.852+11:00Saving a conversation for future consideration is ...Saving a conversation for future consideration is something you cannot always do. Last night I was privy to a discussion that got deleted by its host once the thing got too combative. I do remember the gist of it however and it is - once more - an effective illustration of the limitations of a particular mindset. What I call 'online activists' demonstrated how they tend to turn in on themselves and find themselves confined to ever-smaller spaces of permitted expression.<br /><br />The topic was recent terrorist attacks in Paris but the _meta_ topic was how much we should focus our compassion on attacks in the developed world as distinct from similar attacks in the developing world. Emotions were charged that weekend and many of the circulating 'memes' were proscribing and judgemental in tone. Some had started to object to this and the host of the discussion was questioning whether there was anything to those objections. I suggested that there was some peer pressure to only say particular things in particular ways. Beyond that I was an observer of the discussion and for a while it was all pretty civil. <br /><br />Suddenly however someone used a demographic tag as a dismissal to silence someone rather than try to describe exactly what they had a problem with. According to the protocols of identity politics if you are of an identity deemed more 'privileged' then you have to submit to censure and that is exactly what happened. Another person who cannot be silenced by that protocol (because of demographics) then rightly expressed anger at what was pretty much just abuse-in-text and the whole discussion was removed shortly after.<br /><br />It was a bit shocking but also telling. I had talked of how peer pressure can come from any direction and enforce any set of opinions. A few hours later here was an excellent case of just that sort of behaviour. It can be rather distressing because words are powerful. I can only imagine it is a much bigger problem in closed online settings entirely populated by those confirming to the these protocols because nobody who is (i) free of those protocols and (ii) free of a 'privileged' identity is there to throw a spanner in the works. <br /><br />From what I've observed an odd kind of democracy is practiced there. Anyone can alter the parameters of discussion but only in a narrowing direction. Successive vetoing actions result in a ever-shrinking space of what talk is permitted. It is almost as if that movement has an inherent limiting mechanism that ensures that it will never do much more than traumatize its own adherents. A more diverse exploration of opinions within a framework of respect could be far less damaging to those involved.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19268887.post-25437247003505134582015-11-17T11:18:31.765+11:002015-11-17T11:18:31.765+11:00I described here how the 'Revolutionary' t...I described here how the 'Revolutionary' talkfest I engaged with could orate but lacked the ability to debate. This I only discovered by communicating with them and I'm finding that conversations are a fine way to expose the flaws of different movements or mindsets. Discussions can suddenly become telling illustrations of what is under discussion.<br /><br />Mid-last year I got into a discussion online with friends who have have the 'supposed secularist' tendency I refer to above. Someone shared an opinion piece on how we all filter information to confirm our own perspectives. It was one of a number of similar items circulating at the time describing studies of bias. Some of them even went so far as to say that conservatives or religious persons are inherently more biased than progressives or secularists. The fact that my fellow progressives were gleefully sharing this made me somewhat suspicious. However the opinion piece in question was more enlightened.<br /><br />It acknowledged that bias is a problem for anyone. It described the issue but then also went onto propose some solutions. You cannot just shout the truth at someone. Nor can you feed them lots of boring facts. You need to present the facts within a message or 'story' that is adjusted to fit the emotional needs and concerns of those you are seeking to communicate with. The comments that followed this were fascinating.<br /><br />I stated something to show I understood that there were solutions to the problem and then others responded with comments like "did we read the same thing?" We did but it was almost as if they had only read the first half (describing the problem) and missed the second half (proposing solutions). I could quote specific lines supporting my interpretation and asked the others to do the same. Silence was the only response. For a while there I even suspected that my friends were cleverly modelling blinkered thinking to show me how rife the problem is. But I think they were in fact demonstrating that they held a blinkered position that says those who think differently from them cannot ever change as therefore they never have to try and engage. I wonder what sort of emotive adjustments I could have made to better communicate with them. Maybe I could have shared anecdotes in which I have shifted the thinking of someone to help them see it can be done (because they have very limited capacity for conflict). I never did that. I did however save a link to that conversation to look back over.<br /><br />[character limit forces me to post a follow-on comment so see below]Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710148812664294219noreply@blogger.com