dreamer_easy: (melanin)
Reading about bullying is at once reassuring and liberating, and bloody horrible, as all the old nausea and dread comes rushing out. I've parked so much information about the subject here there's probably not a whole lot of value in my adding much more, but I may take some notes and add further info and/or insights at some point. In the meantime, have a squiz at The Web Means the End of Forgetting, There's Only One Way to Stop a Bully, and this particularly ugly example of how malicious gossip online - in this case, a deliberate distortion swallowed and spread by the credulous - can affect someone IRL.

ETA: Six Causes of Online Disinhibition, for good or ill; and from the same psychology blog, 10 Rules That Govern Groups, Group Polarization, and Fighting Groupthink.

Putting that topic aside for now, here's some Australian stuff:

The Brisbane Times reports on sexual assault during Schoolies' Week. Beneath the titillating headline there's a surprising amount of acknowledgement that the problem is the rapists and not their targets - in particular, the need to educate young men.

Still on The Kids, a survey of young Australians brings out concerns about how police interact with them, including racist assumptions and general disrespect. (Have I told you this story before? My first conscious awareness of Privilege™ came when inspectors insisted a pair of teenagers Of Middle Eastern Appearance produce their train tickets, but let off the middle-class Anglo thirtysomething - me! - when I couldn't find mine promptly.)

Gay marriage: what would it really take? A detailed look at the state of play in Australia. (ETA: the same politics explains why schools get chaplains instead of counsellors.)

Heck, while I'm here, have this, too:

We Are All Talk Radio Hosts: "Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade... Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views." Oh, shit.

ETA: And this: The forgotten Muslim victims of 11 September 2001, from the UK's Independent, 11 October 2001.

Junk Words

Jun. 5th, 2010 06:08 pm
dreamer_easy: (Default)
Some phrases I think the Web might be better off without. Like junk food, they're easy and popular, but they don't have any real content.

1. "Wow. Just... wow."
2. "There are no words".

If you haven't got anything to say, it may be better not to say anything!

3. "Fail".

This is now used so often, and so broadly, that it's become meaningless. It might be better to say explicitly what's wrong with the statement or action in question.

4. "Your ass is showing."

This is sometimes used as a gentle or humorous alternative to railing at someone, demanding they apologise, etc, with the hope of avoiding a defensive response. That's an excellent motive, but I think the expression has its drawbacks. Even when it's well-meant, the implication is not "I (and others) strongly object to what you said", but "You're obviously an idiot and everyone is laughing at you". Not only is that likely to prompt a defensive response rather than a constructive one, but it also leaves no room for alternative viewpoints.

5. "You just don't get it."

Sometimes said in understandable frustration. But at other times, used as a Get Out Of Jail Free card when the discussion becomes too challenging. Beware the latter use.
dreamer_easy: (anti-bullying)
Given his feminist cred, I wonder if Neil Gaiman remarking that "George R. R. Martin is not your bitch" can be read not as a misogynist slip, but a use of the culture's current popular metaphor for exploitation and abuse. In which case, the insult is not directed at the targets of abuse, but at the abusers, with the sense of "stop treating other people like your personal property". It's not a metaphor I'd use myself, and it's right to point out its ugly connotations. But just how useful is it to pillory a long-standing feminist ally on the basis of a single remark? How about (and has this expression has ever been more apposite?) playing the ball instead of the man?

Saltu-ed

Dec. 20th, 2009 01:52 pm
dreamer_easy: (do not fuck with me)
I must tell you, I laughed and laughed when I came across the story of Saltu:

Ishtar, the bratty, noisy, brawling, glorious goddess of sex and violence, has become so much of a pain in the arse that the cunning god Ea creates her mirror image: Saltu, whose name means "strife", a warrioress just as loud and scrappy as Ishtar. In fact, Saltu pesters Ishtar so much that the goddess sees what she's been acting like and gets Ea's message. Ishtar's not tamed; that can't be done. She just tones it down a little.

I laughed because I've been going through the same process myself with all this Internet hoo-hah in recent years. It's made me more aware of my own arguing style and helped me modify it a bit.
dreamer_easy: (WORDS WORDS WORDS)
Oh, there are so many ways to get off on the wrong foot! These are just a few:

Pompous: I note that... / I notice that... / I find it disappointing that you... / I find it fascinating...

Sarcastic: I like how... / I love how... / Right, because...

Patently untrue: I'm sorry, but...

ETA:

Unhelpfully inarticulate: Wow. ...
dreamer_easy: (IT'S A TRAP)
Thought-provoking quote from RTD in an interview earlier this year:

You’ve come in for some criticism for shooting in Dubai.
'From some blogs, yeah. I knew what we were doing. I didn’t personally choose the location, but I’m not ducking out of it now, I am the exec producer. But of course we filmed there. What are we suggesting, that we isolate the whole Arab world? Or the whole Islamic world? Do we cut them off? Do they cut us off? It’s not the way anyone engages with the modern world at all, I wouldn’t do that on a personal level or a professional level. Underneath it all is a subtle form of racism at work there that says white westerners are encouraged to love ethnic races, unless they’re rich. All these countries are running out of oil, so they have to build these giant hotels, because all they can do is engage with the West. After that the laws will change and the culture will change and we will assimilate with them as well. It’s a big cultural process and nothing is ever gained by saying: "We’re not going there." Would you refuse to go into a room with an Arab? Where does that get people? I’m not saying we Westernise them, it’ll go the other way and happen in ways we don’t like personally as well. If you isolate them then you end up with Zimbabwe or with what’s happening in Senegal.'
Now this may be a bit of a rationalisation, and there's a case to be made that nations with a dodgy human rights record, including persecution of gays, ought not to have our business - especially government business. (In which case we'd better do something about all these cars.) But those things said, I see that urge to ostracise everywhere, from trivial squabbles online to boycotts of international conferences. I think it's often a mistake, as simple, righteous solutions to complicated problems frequently are. Dialogue's difficult and frustrating. Having to change our opinions, or make compromises, is humiliating. Much simpler to just say, "Hmph, I'm not talking to you."
dreamer_easy: (WORDS WORDS WORDS)
Discussing "illiteracy" on the Intersplat (in this case, merely a defiantly casual attitude to typos) I looked up the stats on actual illiteracy in Australia, and was surprised to learn that about half of all adult Australians can't understand newspapers, forms, instructions, maps, timetables, etc etc, well enough "to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy". Those are important things which people will put some effort into reading and thinking about. Flipping heck, what chance has a posting on the Internet got?!
dreamer_easy: (OPINION)
Do not utter libel, speak what is of good report.
Do not say evil things, speak well of people.
One who utters libel and speaks evil,
Men will waylay him with his debit account to Shamash.

[That is - I think - they'll point out all of his faults and crimes.)

- The Babylonian "Counsels of Wisdom", c. 1500 BCE. From W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford University Press, 1960.
dreamer_easy: (IT'S A TRAP)
Behold the Dunning-Kruger Effect: a psychological phenomenon in which folks overestimate their own competence at something, precisely because they lack the competence to correctly judge their own ability.

This plugs right in to the natural but hazardous tendency to trust people who seem confident, regardless of their actual knowledge or skill. (Beware online disputants who make authoritative statements.)

None of us is immune to these fallacies, of course. But when you compare the ravings of fandom with the actual processes of writing or TV production, you'll see the Dunning-Kruger Effect at work!
dreamer_easy: (IT'S A TRAP)
Advantages to bring to an online dispute:

1. Awareness that your opponent may say something you agree with.

There is no better way to confuse your esteemed interlocutor than by agreeing with them. They will likely gainsay anything you say, so will end up arguing with themselves.


2. Willingness to let the other person have the last word.

Make a snappy "exit statement" to which any response will look like spluttering. (Don't read said spluttering, as you may be tempted to return, in the manner of someone who has just delivered a glorious smackdown and stormed out and then has to sneak back in because they forgot their hat.)
dreamer_easy: (BUDDHIST)
In the grip of mid insomnia around 3 am, I listened to a short talk on the Buddhist idea of Right Speech. As someone with a history of wading into arguments with a sword swinging around her head, and someone who sees all the damage done by teh net.stupid, I'm becoming convinced that Right Speech is the only hope for text-based online communication.

Importantly, the talk wasn't about morality - about judging our own speech and others' speech and how well it conforms to some standard of correctness. If that was the emphasis, it would really be no different from the how-very-dare-you oneupmanship of current online conflict. Rather, it was about using speech skilfully, about recognising the effects of speech - for example, avoiding lying because of the terrific damage this could cause to ourselves and others - and about using speech to connect rather than to separate and alienate.

The talk identified four kinds of speech that tend to drive people apart rather than bringing them together: lying, malicious speech, gossip, and harsh speech (IIUC the latter is upsetting without necessarily being intended to be). It's the work of minutes to find examples of each of these online.

Teh net.stupid is not stupidity or malice, but negligence, the result of quick, shallow reading and posting. The impact of a careless word can be hugely magnified by the Intersplat - how serious it seems, how many people it reaches. An awful lot of online untruths are not deliberate deception, but strawmen created by carelessness: it doesn't take much to distort a debatable statement into an outrageous one, especially with the help of Internet maths. A debatable statement invites, well, debate; but someone who's made an outrageous statement is beyond the pale, fair game for gossip and malice.

So spending more time and thought on reading and posting is one key; and I think that idea of trying to speak in ways which connect people rather than driving them apart may be another. This may mean putting down our righteousness, our indignation, and our need to reassure ourselves that we're good and worthy by attacking others as bad and worthless.

(Ultimately this comes back to grace, the complement to reciprocity. I need to make a proper posting about both concepts. But if you want a bald example of grace, check out the end of The Doctor's Daughter, where the Doctor is justly entitled to take something and doesn't.)
dreamer_easy: (NOT LAUGHING)
A little lol for me as someone posts a link to Lalla Ward reading out mean letters sent to atheists. The lol stems from the obvious comparison with Cardinal Pell's op-ed about condoms, which is largely taken up by whinging about how everyone is so mean to him and the Pope. Sadly, whether a statement is polite or rude has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that statement is true. Ignore these bids for sympathy and assess the facts and logic instead.
dreamer_easy: (JUST ATTACK EVERYTHING!)
Do not frequent a law court,
Do not loiter where there is a dispute,
For in the dispute they will have you as a testifier,
Then you will be made their witness
And they will bring you to a lawsuit not your own to affirm.
When confronted with a dispute, go your way; pay no attention to it.
Should it be a dispute of your own, extinguish the flame!
Disputes are a covered pit,
A strong wall that scares away its foes.
They remember what a man forgets and lay the accusation.
Do not return evil to the man who disputes with you;
Requite with kindness your evil-doer,
Maintain justice to your enemy,
Smile on your adversary.

The Babylonian "Counsels of Wisdom", c. 1500 BCE. From W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford University Press, 1960.
dreamer_easy: (BLUE ROSE)
ETA: Forgot to link to the piece in question, which is an op-ed (a blog, an opinion column), rather than the paper's editorial. Here it is: Defining war crimes.

Here's an example of what drives me slightly crazy about the Middle East conflict. It's a 19 January editorial from the Jerusalem Post, which says in part:
"The coupling of 'war crime' and Israel is not new, and indeed much of the international media and foreign leadership favors using the term to describe Israel's current offensive operations in the Gaza Strip. Based on the above definition of war crime, one must then ask why the international community and the international press refrain from calling Hamas's actions against Israel--war crimes."
When I was a fire-breathing feminist on Usenet, we called this shifting the spotlight. If someone brings up the subject of wife beating, start talking about child abuse. Similarly, the editorial makes no attempt to address the question of whether Israel is committing war crimes. Instead, it turns to what is apparently the stock response from too many of of Israel's supporters: never mind what we're doing, look what they're doing. For heaven's sake, you wouldn't accept this excuse from a child.

Closely related to this tactic is the oft-heard cry of "Feminists / Amnesty International / you / etc condemn X, but don't condemn Y!" This is merely another way of shifting the spotlight - this time to your mum in the front seat, rather than to your kid brother in the back. Not only is it irrelevant, but long experience has shown me that it's almost never true: the person making the claim neither knows nor cares what NOW or HRW or whomever have had to say on the subject. Since it hasn't been spooned into their mouths by whatever section of the media they follow, it didn't happen.

The existence of Google only makes this disingenous laziness even less excusable: search for hamas "war crimes", and just the first page of results includes "Hamas' war crimes" (LA Times, 10 Jan) and Gaza: Armed Palestinian Groups Commit Grave Crimes (Human Rights Watch, June 2007, commenting on "serious violations of international humanitarian law, in some cases amounting to war crimes").

IMHO it's perfectly reasonable to point out that both sides are guilty of behaviour which may amount to war crimes. It's not reasonable to refuse to take responsibility for your own side's behaviour by ignoring it, by saying the other guy does it too so that makes it OK, or by whinging that everyone is hypocritical and unfair and mean. (The latter is only the more annoying when it comes from the enormously more powerful side in any conflict.)

In short: don't make me turn this car around.
dreamer_easy: (BLUE ROSE)
"Niceness, of course, can serve a person well. People like to be near you. You don't alienate people because you rarely contradict them. You are eternally bouncy and chipper and content and respectful. But in being nice, you have to walk a very fine line. Niceness can work for you or against you, and unless you are loaded with charisma, constant niceness can spell disaster. For to be truly nice, you must veil what you think and feel. Since being nice is really about seeking the approval of others, you slide into the habit of being deferential. You give in on things rather than put up a fight. [...] In essence, we allow others to take advantage of us. And many of us feel compelled to do it again and again. After all, as we know, people don't like women who aren't nice."
- Leora Tanenbaum, Catfight: why women compete with each other, pp 170-1

I can't even sit down and read this book properly from cover to cover. It just makes me want to cry. I recognise so many of my own experiences, and so much of the nonsense that goes on inside my own head.
dreamer_easy: (Default)
At some stage I should perhaps codify the "rules" of the Gentle Art of Disputation. Perhaps ten rules, of which nine would be "check the facts". In the meantime, here are a couple more thoughts on the topic. These are, of course, not absolute rules of morality or logic, but conveniences that save time and effort.

Snark is funny. I have a buttload of snarky macros and icons saved on my hard drive. However, snark conveys no information whatsoever. In a serious discussion, avoid using it.

If someone says something so outrageous you find yourself thinking "I can't believe they just said that!!!", listen to that instinct, because maybe they didn't. Is it possible you've misunderstood? That they've expressed themselves badly? That the online game of Whispers has distorted some reasonable statement into craziness? Check the facts; ask for clarification. (Never assume that "quotation marks" indicate an actual quote!)

Profile

dreamer_easy: (Default)
dreamer_easy

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 8th, 2025 10:24 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios