Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
My New Year's Resolution - be kinder and less judgmental online
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
It's a shame if you don't respond, Antoinette. Because you've raised a serious and central issue.
Obviously if you think Bansai's comments are not helpful, then plainly you can choose not to answer him. But I hope you would reflect on and perhaps respond to Liz Ixer's comments which are not just measured and thoughtful, but link to a wider feature of social media discussions. This is the danger of echo chambers of the like-minded. A sort of 'groupthink' where people spend time on websites with opinions they agree with.You asked me if I had no views of my own to express. I linked to Shirky because I've not come across anyone who is nearly so insightful and clear about social media. He's made sense of my own experience.
I disagree with some of what he says. (So do other people.) But I don't have anything that's fresh and new to add to how he and others have described the problems - and the solutions they suggest.
Except perhaps to suggest that there's a great deal to be learned from the co-ops and collectives of the Sixties. In particular that when he refers to "islands of civil discourse", that there's a need to distinguish discourse based on 'deference' and 'reference'. In other words respect for people because they are 'important' and in authority; compared to a more egalitarian civility.
The social media 'space' is more democratic. Which is a good thing. But can also be difficult to navigate. Shirky says we're in a transition phase. We'll make mistakes, get it wrong, and need to repair that.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
I think this is interesting because I most certainly think that there is a significant element of folks being at arms length and anonymous. What stops us shop lifting, often it is the moral question (its plain wrong), but it is also the social control element of being caught and punished. Online there is no/ limited punishment for your actions, so no social boundaries beyond your own baseline values to hold you back.
However, I think Antoinette's response to you Alan is indicative of another factor- call it my 'third way'. Antoinette's comment was short, open to being seen as possibly ill thought through in terms of presentation, and open to being read in a very challenging manner. This may not have been Antoinette's intention, and it can often be hard to back down, apologies, learn from your error and move on when called out on an issue, especially if in the process of being called out your back is up. Online no one can see you smile, so no one knows what the other 90%+ of what you are tying to communicate is, they have only the words that you write- many of which can be ambiguous. There are times when you do not want write massive tracts to be clear you do not offend anyone (on a mobile for example), so to a degree we as a the reader have to take care not to look for offence everywhere. Sadly though in a brief post like Antoinette's the reader can easily see such offence, whether intended or not (as Bansai did or has chosen to do to make a point).
The topic made me think of an episode on This American Life about Trolls by the way. It is heart breaking and warming at the same time. I really do recommend you listen to it. The lady in the podcast called her Troll out, and I will not spoil the ending! This American Life is behind the Serial podcast series last year that went viral!
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
The point you make about my short answers are very true. It is open to interpretation and I was well aware of that when I said it. I would argue that how people interpret what is said says much more about them than it does about me. It was a challenging response to Alan (who I felt was sitting on the fence a bit by deferring to a well known writer on the subject). I wanted to elicit Alan's own views and said so. But it wasn't rude or offensive, and to his absolute credit he didn't act offended and gave a very considered reply. To me, that is true debate
-
-
I'm between a rock and a hard place where Bansal's comments are concerned given I don't think there's a nice way to respond to being called dishonest and distasteful.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Morning Antoinette. I posted something similar a while back after a conversation with a friend who is a HoL member but rarely takes part in discussions on here
http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/why-do-so-few-hol-membe...
-
-
So how do we convince the silent majority that it's safe to post without fear of retribution?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
It's not safe and it's not a problem.
This is the only online forum I have ever contributed to for fear of being flamed in others. I don't go bleating to those sites' moderators asking them to make it less mean as I'm mostly there for the excellent posts put up by others more knowledgeable than myself. Some people who post on here put very little thought into it and are quite rightly climbed into.
-
Permalink Reply by Judith Box on
-
I have seen very few derogatory responses - and negative is surely open to interpretation and debate? Is an alternative view necessarily a 'negative' one - I don't believe discussion should be so binary.
My own bug bear (as I'm sure you have realised) is unnecessarily provocative and scaremongering type post titles. If I express my opinion on this, am I being negative in the face of some genuine public service? I do however object to being told I am just being 'politically correct' as if this is a bad thing.
I (usually) try to think carefully about what I say and am always mindful that my audience is not just Harringay but indeed the whole world. Something that is easy to forget when you are sat at home in your cosy front room chatting away online.
We're still establishing new social norms when it comes to online interactions - and it's a tricker medium than face to face because of the lack of non-verbal cues. Hence the rise of the emoticon and interesting punctuation type effects to help add that non-verbal depth to your chatting. !!!!!!
(see what I did there....)So I agree - we do need to be gentler with people online - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge -it just means we should think about the power of the words we use. Being kind shouldn't mean everyone just gets to say whatever they want, but it should mean you never get a response that attacks you as a person. So negative (in the sense of different opinion to mine) I'm fine with, derogatory not so much.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Over the years on HOL, I have been seriously flamed twice - ironically on both occasions I was trying to help people stay safe - but it hasn't stopped me contributing.
I have been called -
Misogynistic:- As it happens, I think that women are two or three steps up the evolutionary ladder from men and the world will be a better place as soon as they perfect self-fertilisation.
A Tory:- Nooooooo !!!
A Victim Blamer:- No, but I think people should be sensible in their behaviour in a world containing criminals/road traffic.
A geriatric motorist:- got to hold my hand up to that one
None of these bother me, although I take a moment to ask myself what provoked the comments and if I should modify the expression of my views.
However, if I feel strongly about something I will say so plainly and I will not take offence at a robust reply.
The guiding principle is play the ball, not the person ( see what I did there ? )
-
-
You meant to say "play the man, not the ball" but changed it because you were worried about being called sexist. Go on, admit it. ;)
-
-
Maybe I should become more fluent in the language of emoticons which I never use.... what is the nuance in the meaning between the one smiling to reveal it's teeth and the closed mouth variety?? I'd never dare use the sticking tongue out variety. .
-
-
Think that horse has well and truly bolted for me now....je suis Antoinette et je ne regrette rien!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
