![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You know when you get one of those nagging itches in the middle of your back, the kind that you can't seem to manage to scratch in a satisfying way, the kind that has you shifting and squirming and wishing that it would just stop? Well, I've had a few of these kicking about in my brain this year as I've watched various eruptions in LJland this winter.
One thing that has been nagging at me is the use of the word "fail." Yes, I myself have occasionally said that something or someone is "made of fail." However, I've been seeing it more and more and more in recent shitstorms, one of which even takes it as part of its name, and in those places, the use of the word seems to point directly at an unacknowledged root of a lot of the conflict.
Looking back to changes in policy and format at LiveJournal over the last several years, there have been many examples of policies that a portion of the user base insisted showed that LJ was "made of fail." Now, some of us might have slapped on the fandom catchphrase to say, "Yeah, what you just did, LJ, it totally sucked." While that may have been the intent, but the words are more specific. What they say is, "You know what, LJ, you are not behaving as I expect you to. You are failing to respond as I would and as I think you should." And there are a lot of problematic assumptions in that line of reasoning.
Yes, I know that it's easy for us to default to the view that other people think and believe as we do. Because we know our own hearts and minds and we have things arranged in them in ways that make sense to us, right? Because we're good people with good intentions and that, by extension, makes our views good, yes? If it's easy to default to the thinking that way, it's just as easy, maybe even easier, to cross the line into "Other people should think like me." That is where the problems start, where "made of fail" really means "failing to believe as I do or respond as I would have responded."
None of the communities we belong to from the smallest to the largest are monolithic entities. We don't all think or feel or believe the same way on every issue all of the time, and we certainly shouldn't expect that we will or insist that we ought to. When we do, what we see are people crying foul and insisting they have been slighted or wronged or dismissed by people who happen to disagree with them. I'm not sure when having different ideas and voicing reasoned dissent became the equivalent of painting a bull's-eye on your chest and yelling, "FIRE!" to the armed masses, only that it has.
Call me crazy, but I believe we can have reasoned discussions over issues that are volatile and spark a lot of passion. I had a class one semester going on about how cushy people in prison have it. They have their food and shelter provided for them. They can take classes. I was gently probing their assumptions, working up to the point that I had a list to go through with them when a woman raised her hand, said, "I want you all to know that I was in prison for six months. Let me tell you what it's really like." I had another student who was in the National Guard at the time when we first invaded Iraq. Most of the class approved of the invasion and thought we should have done more and sooner and should be sending more troops to crush all opposition as quickly as possible. And then one student in the back, said, "You know what, guys, I'm in the National Guard, and it's very likely I'll be deployed. I have a wife I don't want to leave in a house we just bought because we're trying to start a family. I have a job I love and a dog. That's what I have to give up if we send more troops. What do the rest of you have to sacrifice?"
It's not a bad thing when someone brings us up short and challenges our assumptions. It only becomes bad when we examine our positions, decide that we need to agree to disagree, and the person voicing the challenge can't accept that decision. Because we should see they are right and their view is the only view.
If my students can do this, why can't we manage in this space? Maybe it's because it's harder to be an asshole when you have to look someone in the eyes and say something instead of just posting a comment. Maybe it's because I don't allow people free rein to mock others' views or assumptions, which only leads to bad feelings and people being totally entrenched and unwilling to listen. If your goal is to get people to re-evaluate what they are saying/doing, being sarcastic and mocking isn't the way to go. I tend toward the sarcastic and can mock with the best of them, but I also know how those things most often result in "preaching to the choir." If your goal is to get other people who already agree with you to pat you on the back for a job well done, they're good strategies. Outside of that, not so much.
When that back patting is going on in a public space, how it is conducted makes as much of a statement about you and your position as the views you're sharing. If you are calling out people for being overly sensitive or defensive (or "butthurt"), you might want to consider that response in light of comments that you made about wishing that someone "die in a fire." And people responding to that comment might want to think about how it looks when they tell the commenter she "rocks so hard" or is "[their] hero."
Yes, people can say what they want, however they want, but they don't have any control over how others will respond to their words, and calling out someone as being "butthurt" over something you've said dismisses that person's response. I'm not saying that one response should trump the other. I'm not saying both positions don't have emotional validity for the people holding them, only that the truth of the response isn't the universal TRUTH it is often made out to be.
Okay, I'm still a little itchy, but if I don't get groceries and finish my grading. Apologies for ending more abruptly than I'd like.
One thing that has been nagging at me is the use of the word "fail." Yes, I myself have occasionally said that something or someone is "made of fail." However, I've been seeing it more and more and more in recent shitstorms, one of which even takes it as part of its name, and in those places, the use of the word seems to point directly at an unacknowledged root of a lot of the conflict.
Looking back to changes in policy and format at LiveJournal over the last several years, there have been many examples of policies that a portion of the user base insisted showed that LJ was "made of fail." Now, some of us might have slapped on the fandom catchphrase to say, "Yeah, what you just did, LJ, it totally sucked." While that may have been the intent, but the words are more specific. What they say is, "You know what, LJ, you are not behaving as I expect you to. You are failing to respond as I would and as I think you should." And there are a lot of problematic assumptions in that line of reasoning.
Yes, I know that it's easy for us to default to the view that other people think and believe as we do. Because we know our own hearts and minds and we have things arranged in them in ways that make sense to us, right? Because we're good people with good intentions and that, by extension, makes our views good, yes? If it's easy to default to the thinking that way, it's just as easy, maybe even easier, to cross the line into "Other people should think like me." That is where the problems start, where "made of fail" really means "failing to believe as I do or respond as I would have responded."
None of the communities we belong to from the smallest to the largest are monolithic entities. We don't all think or feel or believe the same way on every issue all of the time, and we certainly shouldn't expect that we will or insist that we ought to. When we do, what we see are people crying foul and insisting they have been slighted or wronged or dismissed by people who happen to disagree with them. I'm not sure when having different ideas and voicing reasoned dissent became the equivalent of painting a bull's-eye on your chest and yelling, "FIRE!" to the armed masses, only that it has.
Call me crazy, but I believe we can have reasoned discussions over issues that are volatile and spark a lot of passion. I had a class one semester going on about how cushy people in prison have it. They have their food and shelter provided for them. They can take classes. I was gently probing their assumptions, working up to the point that I had a list to go through with them when a woman raised her hand, said, "I want you all to know that I was in prison for six months. Let me tell you what it's really like." I had another student who was in the National Guard at the time when we first invaded Iraq. Most of the class approved of the invasion and thought we should have done more and sooner and should be sending more troops to crush all opposition as quickly as possible. And then one student in the back, said, "You know what, guys, I'm in the National Guard, and it's very likely I'll be deployed. I have a wife I don't want to leave in a house we just bought because we're trying to start a family. I have a job I love and a dog. That's what I have to give up if we send more troops. What do the rest of you have to sacrifice?"
It's not a bad thing when someone brings us up short and challenges our assumptions. It only becomes bad when we examine our positions, decide that we need to agree to disagree, and the person voicing the challenge can't accept that decision. Because we should see they are right and their view is the only view.
If my students can do this, why can't we manage in this space? Maybe it's because it's harder to be an asshole when you have to look someone in the eyes and say something instead of just posting a comment. Maybe it's because I don't allow people free rein to mock others' views or assumptions, which only leads to bad feelings and people being totally entrenched and unwilling to listen. If your goal is to get people to re-evaluate what they are saying/doing, being sarcastic and mocking isn't the way to go. I tend toward the sarcastic and can mock with the best of them, but I also know how those things most often result in "preaching to the choir." If your goal is to get other people who already agree with you to pat you on the back for a job well done, they're good strategies. Outside of that, not so much.
When that back patting is going on in a public space, how it is conducted makes as much of a statement about you and your position as the views you're sharing. If you are calling out people for being overly sensitive or defensive (or "butthurt"), you might want to consider that response in light of comments that you made about wishing that someone "die in a fire." And people responding to that comment might want to think about how it looks when they tell the commenter she "rocks so hard" or is "[their] hero."
Yes, people can say what they want, however they want, but they don't have any control over how others will respond to their words, and calling out someone as being "butthurt" over something you've said dismisses that person's response. I'm not saying that one response should trump the other. I'm not saying both positions don't have emotional validity for the people holding them, only that the truth of the response isn't the universal TRUTH it is often made out to be.
Okay, I'm still a little itchy, but if I don't get groceries and finish my grading. Apologies for ending more abruptly than I'd like.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Truth is a difficult thing--like so many things in life, it's not black or white, and so many people refuse to acknowledge that. There *is* no "universal truth"--what you find as true depends so much on your environment, your culture, what you believe in, and that goes for others as well as yourself. Of course, if someone refuses to believe that *their* truth is a subjective one, they're not going to believe that other people will have their own truth, different but just as important (I'm not using "valid" here because it's a loaded word, and this is a loaded enough comment as it is!).
I understand about being itchy--I've been watching all the mess from afar (mostly because I don't want to get into it), and *I'm* twitchy about some of what's happened and the language used. So I really appreciate this post... as you can see (*grin*) it's helped me crystallize a few things as well.
~Kris
From:
no subject
But yeah, I know what you mean. I've been watching from the sidelines too, and getting involved is about as appealing as jumping naked into a tank of schooling pirahnas. However, at the same time, I feel like I need to say something if just to clear out the things that have been knocking around inside my head.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
And yeah, people just stopped listening and started shouting and snarking.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Anyway, pretty much all talk on race normally devolves into wank & people freaking out. Ah, how far we haven't come, y'know?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I think I'm missing something. I think I'm glad I'm oblivious.
However, you are eloquent and spot on about the "challenging of assumptions." I've had several challenged lately and I love it.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I saw that post when she posted it, thought it was quite insightful, and then learned it had caused a huge storm much later.
It's so sad that it caused people to react so poorly. I see both sides, but quite frankly, I think Stephen Colbert illustrated it best in his skit on his show.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
You'd think a bunch of adults could debate more logically and compassionately.
Ah well. C'est l'internets, no?
From:
no subject