Be careful what you leave unsaid

[sqbr]

The next of my General principles of internet communication, once again prompted by me starting a post about something else (in fact, the same post. I will finish it one day!) and going off on a tangent :) Really obvious, yet I am constantly forgetting to do it.

There are a lot of idiots on the internet. You never know when someone is an idiot, a troll, and/or a bigot/extremist etc. And remember, to a random stranger on the internet you are a random stranger on the internet. They are completely justified in assuming the worst of you until given reason to do otherwise. If what you've said could possibly be interpreted in a negative light (without the context of knowing you), then it's entirely reasonable for them to do so, so don't get narky, just explain what you really meant. Also, they're a stranger on the internet, so they may see everything you say as ammunition, for whatever nefarious goal they're pursuing. Either way: think carefully about what you're assuming and how your words can be interpreted.

If you agree with parts of what they're saying, but disagree with other parts don't just mention the bits you disagree with(*). They'll assume you disagree with everything. This goes double if the stuff you agree with disproves something you said earlier: you need to acknowledge it or they'll get understandably frustrated and the conversation won't be able to move on. The one exception is when a troll keeps making true but irrelevant remarks to derail the conversation, but even then imo the best response is usually to go "That's (possibly) true but irrelevant, stop trying to derail the conversation, if you keep going I'm going to ignore you".

Somewhat silly example:
P1: Hitler was a million times more evil than anyone who has ever lived.
P2: I don't know about that.
P3: Yeah, what about Stalin?
P2: Exactly, I'm not sure he was a MILLION times more evil than Stalin.
P1: Are you saying Hitler wasn't evil? Are you a nazi?
P2: What? That's...
P3: What if I am? Just because me and P2 can see past the propaganda to the true patriot Hitler really was :P
P2: Arg! No!

Versus "Yes, Hitler was pretty evil, but I'm not he was a million times more evil than everyone else".

So, anyone have a problem with any of that? It seems obvious to me, but doesn't seem very widely practiced :/ The only real downside I can see is getting longwinded with clarifications in your initial statements when it may turn out noone needs them, certainly you have to make *some* assumptions about common ground before going into a conversation or you'll never get started. But I think a lot of this can be achieved with careful choice of language rather than just saying extra stuff. And if you're talking to people you know it's all a lot less fraught.

(*)Having someone assume you agree with the things you didn't explicitly disagree with is a less common problem, but still something to keep an eye out for.

Comments

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

The longwindedness of clarifications certainly causes problems. In general, people tend to skim read and pick out key words and phrases, then infer the rest based on their assumption of your position. Hence, most internet arguments devolve into RAGE RAGE RAGE over minor semantic differences despite both parties arguing in the same direction.

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Yeah. If the argument's with someone I know well enough, I'm not afraid to say, "You're being a pedantic idiot." Strangely, I'm more polite to strangers. :)

I find the semantics game one of the dullest on the internet, so if I'm getting to the stage where an exchange is more clarification than discussion, I'll pull out.

[alias_sqbr]

I think a lot of semantic arguments would be cut down if people starting by saying which parts of the others statement they agreed with. And the rest would probably disappear if people got a sense of perspective :D

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

You work on part A, I'll work on part B. :)

You're right, there are fairly simple things that can be done to cut down the risk of miscommunication. I tend to assume good faith but have (for internet strangers) a fairly low tolerance for people wilfully interpreting my words in an aggressive, point-scoring manner. As I said, it's no fun.

You're always better served being as clear as you can be - but that gets tedious, and in familiar social spaces (my lj, say, or friends' ljs) I'll tend to be a bit more relaxed about it.

Except for you. You make me think about what I'm writing. It takes me eight times as long to write a comment to you as anyone else. :)

[alias_sqbr]

Except for you. You make me think about what I'm writing. It takes me eight times as long to write a comment to you as anyone else. :)

I'll take that as a compliment :D

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Maybe you should. :) You are someone I can rely on to challenge my thinking in a non-aggressive way, and I appreciate it.

Though - and here's an example - I have noticed a tendency to *over*think when I'm responding to you, which sometimes results in a complicated mess of thoughts that are only tangentially related to what I set out to say (often with poor editing and unfinished sentences). I started wondering if I would actually be better off firing off a flippant gut reaction and explaining what I really meant in the event of a misunderstanding.

I didn't reach any conclusion.

[alias_sqbr]

I have noticed a tendency to *over*think ... which sometimes results in a complicated mess of thoughts that are only tangentially related to what I set out to say (often with poor editing and unfinished sentences). I started wondering if I would actually be better off firing off a flippant gut reaction and explaining what I really meant in the event of a misunderstanding.

Welcome to my natural state :) (Unfortunately I often settle on a compromise of multiple under-proofread overlong tangents...)

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Oh, great. Your brainspace is contagious. :)

[alias_sqbr]

And see now that I think about it, I had several people from my flist randomly engage me in conversation about racism and feminism at the con yesterday. So perhaps it is.

Bwahaha :D

[alias_sqbr]

Certainly I think sometimes you have to take a calculated risk and leave some things unsaid, but I think being aware of how things are going to be interpreted and choosing your words carefully can make a big difference. And being aware of the way things can be misinterpreted on the internet means not getting upset when someone inevitably misinterprets you.

People who don't read everything they're arguing against (unless they at least acknowledge that's what they're doing) annoy me :P (Though people who write unreadably long screeds and get annoyed when others don't read them annoy me too. I at least cut mine :D)

[kadeton.livejournal.com]

The longwindedness of clarifications certainly causes problems. In general, people tend to skim read and pick out key words and phrases, then infer the rest based on their assumption of your position. Hence, most internet arguments devolve into RAGE RAGE RAGE over minor semantic differences despite both parties arguing in the same direction.

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Yeah. If the argument's with someone I know well enough, I'm not afraid to say, "You're being a pedantic idiot." Strangely, I'm more polite to strangers. :)

I find the semantics game one of the dullest on the internet, so if I'm getting to the stage where an exchange is more clarification than discussion, I'll pull out.

[alias_sqbr]

I think a lot of semantic arguments would be cut down if people starting by saying which parts of the others statement they agreed with. And the rest would probably disappear if people got a sense of perspective :D

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

You work on part A, I'll work on part B. :)

You're right, there are fairly simple things that can be done to cut down the risk of miscommunication. I tend to assume good faith but have (for internet strangers) a fairly low tolerance for people wilfully interpreting my words in an aggressive, point-scoring manner. As I said, it's no fun.

You're always better served being as clear as you can be - but that gets tedious, and in familiar social spaces (my lj, say, or friends' ljs) I'll tend to be a bit more relaxed about it.

Except for you. You make me think about what I'm writing. It takes me eight times as long to write a comment to you as anyone else. :)

[alias_sqbr]

Except for you. You make me think about what I'm writing. It takes me eight times as long to write a comment to you as anyone else. :)

I'll take that as a compliment :D

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Maybe you should. :) You are someone I can rely on to challenge my thinking in a non-aggressive way, and I appreciate it.

Though - and here's an example - I have noticed a tendency to *over*think when I'm responding to you, which sometimes results in a complicated mess of thoughts that are only tangentially related to what I set out to say (often with poor editing and unfinished sentences). I started wondering if I would actually be better off firing off a flippant gut reaction and explaining what I really meant in the event of a misunderstanding.

I didn't reach any conclusion.

[alias_sqbr]

I have noticed a tendency to *over*think ... which sometimes results in a complicated mess of thoughts that are only tangentially related to what I set out to say (often with poor editing and unfinished sentences). I started wondering if I would actually be better off firing off a flippant gut reaction and explaining what I really meant in the event of a misunderstanding.

Welcome to my natural state :) (Unfortunately I often settle on a compromise of multiple under-proofread overlong tangents...)

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Oh, great. Your brainspace is contagious. :)

[alias_sqbr]

And see now that I think about it, I had several people from my flist randomly engage me in conversation about racism and feminism at the con yesterday. So perhaps it is.

Bwahaha :D

[alias_sqbr]

Certainly I think sometimes you have to take a calculated risk and leave some things unsaid, but I think being aware of how things are going to be interpreted and choosing your words carefully can make a big difference. And being aware of the way things can be misinterpreted on the internet means not getting upset when someone inevitably misinterprets you.

People who don't read everything they're arguing against (unless they at least acknowledge that's what they're doing) annoy me :P (Though people who write unreadably long screeds and get annoyed when others don't read them annoy me too. I at least cut mine :D)