Rambly thoughts on niceness

[sqbr]

I've been meaning to post some coherent thoughts on niceness for a while but I think I need to post some incoherent ones first to get my thoughts in order :)

So: I'm a "nice" person, in that I'm friendly, and polite, and non-threatening, and passive (and that's what I'm going to mean by "nice" in this post. I realise that's not the only definition). I used to feel rather smug about this, and wish other people were more like me(*). But the older I get the more I realise that not only is this "niceness" harmful to me (as I get all repressed and ignored) but it can also be harmful to those around me, and stems largely from entirely selfish motivations.

Disclaimers like whoa, I'm definitely just stream-of-consciousnessing here. And have a headache :)

EDIT: This is a bunch of thoughts about the flaws of niceness, mainly as it relates to me and my behaviour. Niceness has a lot of benefits too, I just didn't go into them. Also people make some good points in the comments.

I do not deal well with conflict. If I'm afraid, or angry, or embarrassed, my brain shuts down and I freak out, either I freeze and can't think of what to say, or I burst into tears, or say something really really stupid. Often all three.

Now I've been working on this and don't freak out as much as I used to, but the main coping technique I've developed over the past 3 decades or so is to be really good at avoiding conflict. If everyone likes me, and I never say or do anything aggressive or uncomfortable, and only ever ask for things in a passive indirect way, noone will ever get angry at me, or decide to pick on me, or whatever. This is accentuated by the way women are in general socialised to be "nice", and coming from a "nice" emotionally repressed, passive aggressive family.

And this works. But it means I end up keeping silent on things that upset me, and not disagreeing with people who I know won't take it well, and overall not getting what I want and being emotionally repressed. This led to Much Badness with my ex boyfriend taking advantage of my "niceness" and since then (1998! I am so old) I've been working towards expressing my anger with people, and overall saying what I think and what I want.

Now some of my primary values are honesty, truth, non-hypocrisy etc. I've always felt that if everyone is calm and logical and polite then it's much easier to get to the truth and avoid all the confusing emotional crap and intimidation that goes along with conflict and rudeness.

But, again around 1998, I started meeting guys(**) in unisfa who in a lot of ways had similar values to me, but felt that politeness meant lying about what you really feel, and that the best way to get to the truth was to avoid all the polite fictions and speak the honest unvarnished truth. (This is probably a gross misrepresentation of their ideals. It's just the impression I got ten years ago!)

Of course it doesn't work that way for me: once people start yelling at me, I can't think, so there's no way for me to express my opinion. But it occurred to me: what if they (or other people) couldn't express themselves as well in my sort of argument? What makes mine inherently better?

And as time's gone on I've seen a lot of examples of calm, "rational" people passive aggressively silencing their critics/opponents by insisting on a "polite" discourse which subtly favours their POV. One of the big ones is to act as if some horrible, hurtful, but "politely" expressed opinion deserves a calm rational, carefully cited refutation, and that anyone who gets angry about it is being rude, and that that rudeness is a much more serious offense. Once someone has been "rude" you can then throw your hands in the air and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as aggressive and overemotional. And a lot of the time of course the definition of "rudeness" is applied inconsistently, and really means "anyone who tells me I am wrong, or gives the impression of having been made angry by my words".

Once you start limiting the boundaries of "acceptable" debate, it's not too hard to use it as an excuse for excluding people you don't like. It's also an excuse to derail a conversation by being a concern troll. One of the common arguments is "You shouldn't do anything that hurts other people's feelings" while completely ignoring (or glossing over) the fact that these "hurtful" actions are in self defense in response to earlier hurtful actions.

Passive aggression is still aggression, it's just sneakier and easier to deny.

Little white lies done for politeness's sake are still lies. If I'm "nice" to someone to their face but complain about them behind their back, that's actually not very "nice".

And if someone is treating someone else like crap in front of me, but I don't call them on it to avoid conflict? Then I am complicit. If I call them on it but am nice to them later? Well, I may still be being complicit (I'm still thinking about that one)

On the other hand, I do NOT like the free-for-all 4-chan-esque approach of everyone being as aggressive and offensive as they like. Not just because it doesn't suit me personally, but because, like overly narrow "politeness", it asymmetrically silences those with less power in the conversation and supports the status quo. Aggression has much more effect if you have more power behind it (ie you're big guy vs a little guy, or a man vs a woman, or a white person vs a black person, etc) and so I still think that too much of it is harmful.

I guess, in short: do not mistake "niceness" for moral superiority.

And that's the end of my incoherent ramble :)

Some links (many of these grew from discussions of racism, but I've seen the same techniques in everything from shipping wars to my grandma bullying my mum about who pays for dinner)

• The five geek fallacies EVERY GEEK NEEDS TO READ THIS.
  
• No More Mr. Nice Guy how "nice guys" actually aren't that nice
  
• How to Not Sound Racist (if you don't listen very hard) 5 techniques white people use to mask their racism, I found it very compelling.
  
• cofax7: links, and some meta on rhetoric "Anger is often a more effective tactic than courtesy in getting people to challenge their assumptions"
  
• I am not the moderator About "nice" white people coming into discussions of racism and thinking they can be the "objective voice of reason".
  
• Why can't we all be nice in which I rant about the "tone" argument, has more links at the bottom
  

(*)A lot of people assume my "nice" demeanor indicates a humble spirit, but apart from a few typical geek issues with self esteem I am egotistical as heck :D
(**)And again we hit the different ways men and women are socialised. Obviously it's not always that simple, my dad is a lot like me for example. But I think the female dominatedness of fanfic fandom is one reason the whole "tone" thing can get really out of hand.

Comments

[sanguinity]

Well, lookit that. I'm not a geek. I've long said I wasn't a geek, not really, because while I like traditionally geeky topics, actual geek gatherings make me want to flee, flee, flee...

And reading those five fallacies? None of them resonate with me, except in a "so THAT'S what they think they're doing? Who'da guessed?" sort of way.


...oh, erm, sorry. You were posting about niceness, weren't you?

[alias_sqbr]

Heh. How rude of you to go off topic! :)

Yes, I think geek personality types are somewhat distinct from geek interests. I know people with the opposite experience to you: they encountered geek social circles peripherally (via relationships etc) and stuck around purely for the feeling of fitting in.

Myself I definitely have both and the only problems I have with geek social groups are somewhat incidental (ie they're very male, and have all the usual "group of like minded people" issues)

So I guess if you ever come visit WA I shouldn't invite you to Buffy night, huh? :)

(edited to use appropriate icon. If I practice using it on you I might be brave enough to use it on someone who's actually being derailing :))

[lilysea.livejournal.com]

Hmm, interesting post, thank you. ^_^

I am too brain-dead right this minute to say more than,

"I can totally relate to the conflict-avoidance thing."

and like you, I value honesty, truth, non-hypocrisy etc.

I'm finding in 2008 and 2009 that I've been making friends with three LOUD women who speak their mind without second-guessing their audience - women who can be tactful / compassionate / kind / thoughtful, but who are also honest, strong and forthright and brave[1].

(One of these women I've known since 2003 through a mutual friend, but until 2008 I found her far too loud and in-your-face and confrontational to want to spend time with.)

and I look at these women and see role models, and I think "*I* would like to be more like that."

I've discovered the words 'preference' and 'prefer' is very useful when trying to reach an agreement or compromise.

"I would prefer that we do Z-thing because... [reason]"

It lowers the stakes for everyone involved: if person A prefers Z-thing and person B prefers H-thing, there's room for negotiation, disagreement without anger, compromise, solutions that meet everyone's needs.

(As opposed to saying "I want to do Z-thing" "We *must* do Z-thing" "We *should* do Z-thing".)

[1] Which is in no way intended to imply that my other friends aren't. Did I mention that I was brain-dead at the moment? ^_^

[alias_sqbr]

I look at these women and see role models, and I think "*I* would like to be more like that."

I've had similar experiences, it made me question exactly what ideal I was striving towards.

"I would prefer that we do Z-thing because... [reason]"

Yes, that can be very helpful. I don't think I'll ever stop preferring low conflict interactions, but I've stopped so much confusing that preference with an absolute good.

Though in the other direction, sometimes people can try and excuse bad behaviour using that argument. For example fanfic fandom has an (on the whole very sensible) general rule that "If you don't like a kind of story, don't read it, don't go on long rants about how Noone Should Write That Crap". But I've then seen arguments along the lines of "You may not like me writing racist characters, but noones forcing you to read my fanfiction" etc.

[callistra.livejournal.com]

You should read The Dance of Pretence. I think I might have it here, but I'm not sure. I still have babalon_93's copy of Dance of Anger though!

I am also learning a lot about my own behaviours from race!fail09. I've picked up some of the things I do in arguments to quash it - and strawman arguments too.

[alias_sqbr]

What's "the dance of pretense"? (Google was not helpful)

I squirmed in awkward recognition at the "I am not the moderator" post. There's been quite a bit of subtle passive aggressive fail in amongst the loud shouty sort which has definitely made me question myself.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

But it means I end up keeping silent on things that upset me, and not disagreeing with people who I know won't take it well, and overall not getting what I want and being emotionally repressed.

I understand that... I am fairly similar, though I've also found that I've gone from not being able to express what I want, to, in a certain extent, not 'wanting' anything much, so that I don't get too disappointed when I don't get.

Except more sleep. Still want that.

[alias_sqbr]

I've also found that I've gone from not being able to express what I want, to, in a certain extent, not 'wanting' anything much, so that I don't get too disappointed when I don't get.

I'm too selfish to put up with that :)

Around her 45th birthday my mum suddenly went "Screw you all, I'm sick of being self sacrificing" and starting to to call my family on their crap(*), and for the 5 or so years since then has just been constantly venting decades and decades of bitterness. Since she and I are very similar in a lot of ways I'm a little worried that might happen to me if I'm not careful.

That's how I justify it to myself anyway!

(*)Not me, I'm nice :) I say with a certain level of irony..

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

There is a marked difference between being
a) polite and compassionate; and
b) cowardly.

I too used to hide behind the concept of "niceness" to justify conflict-avoidance. Not that I don't still hide from conflict, but I don't dress it up as a virtue anymore.

If I call them on it but am nice to them later? Well, I may still be being complicit (I'm still thinking about that one)

I think you can disagree with someone and still be friends, or at least friendly, as long you don't excuse them simply because you're friends.

[alias_sqbr]

There is a marked difference between being
a) polite and compassionate; and
b) cowardly.

I too used to hide behind the concept of "niceness" to justify conflict-avoidance. Not that I don't still hide from conflict, but I don't dress it up as a virtue anymore.

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I see it.

I think you can disagree with someone and still be friends, or at least friendly, as long you don't excuse them simply because you're friends.

Disagree with, yes. But for example when I was in highschool one of my friends was frequently cruel to another of my friends. I told her to stop (in my at that time very passive way) but the rest of the time treated her as a good friend, and in retrospect I feel like I should have said "I'm not going to stay friends with you if you keep behaving that way".

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

*hugs* it's a sodding enormous, complex interaction and I keep writing the first half of a post that in my head is called 'the Rules of Engagement'.

I'm used to some basic rules being in place during emotionally difficult conversations and I do very well with people who use the same rules and surprisingly well with a lot of people who don't. It breaks down completely with people who believe you shouldn't talk about x at all.

The rules are very simple.

1. The person who brings up the issue gets heard
2. The person who listens, listens. They also clarify / reflect.

(both parties try to be compassionate)

3. Resolution is negotiated based on a whole bunch of things and may even be deferred to some point in the future in order to create a safe space for person 1. to talk and for person 2. to deal with what was said.

Being person 1 is hard, you have a responsibility to bring up an issue and be willing to articulate it and explore it and do so in good faith. It's not about proving someone else is a bad person or punishing them. You aren't allowed to bring up everything that's ever annoyed you ever, you get one issue at a time.

Being person 2 is is hard, you have to remember it's not about you. At all. It's about person 1. and maybe, if it looks doable - some sort of resolution. You have to be willing to treat whatever person 1. says as if it's real, and important and you have to help person 1. feel safe enough to want to talk to you again.

I can talk about anything if I know I can trust person 2. to treat me like my feelings are important to them and not to tell me I'm wrong / crazy / not allowed to feel that way / not entitled to feel that way / not gay enough / not feminist enough / not bright enough / too loud / too rude / check bingo card here.

I can listen to anyone if I know they are not just wasting my time/energy by stirring up hurt without being interested in eventual resolution

The exact opposite of this model is one I think of as the military model - it's not very useful.

1. Admit nothing
2. Deny everything
3. Make counter-accusations

[alias_sqbr]

I can talk about anything if I know I can trust person 2. to treat me like my feelings are important to them and not to tell me I'm wrong / crazy / not allowed to feel that way / not entitled to feel that way / not gay enough / not feminist enough / not bright enough / too loud / too rude / check bingo card here.

I can listen to anyone if I know they are not just wasting my time/energy by stirring up hurt without being interested in eventual resolution

I like all of this. I'm not sure it's 100% the way I think of things but the basic gist is pretty spot on. Though unfortunately a lot of people (myself included) are able to follow these rules a lot of the time but have certain blind spots. Also I think sometimes it's too much for person 2 to take, not through any flaw on their part but there are some admissions you don't want to hear. (I'm not sure I can explain what I mean by that though, it's something I'm getting my head around)

The exact opposite of this model is one I think of as the military model - it's not very useful
1. Admit nothing
2. Deny everything
3. Make counter-accusations

Oh boy do I hate that model. There have been many times when I have been happier to talking to people on the other "side" of an argument who have an attitude more like your rules of engagement than I do with those on my "side" who use the military model.

[goth-grrl.livejournal.com]

Probably more for me to take from this post than I want to admit to. And dear god thankyou for that Geek Fallacies link, I've been almost convinced that it was all in my head.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, the first time I read it was one of those incredible "You mean it's not just me??" things :)

[melberon.livejournal.com]

This post bugs me for reasons which I'm not quite sure I can consciously explain yet. Perhaps when I figure out whether or not I fit your definition of "nice" I might have more to say.

It does feel a bit like you're conflating politeness (certain standards for the form of one's behaviour) with political correctness (adhering absolutely to certain ideologies and silencing those who speak out against them). Politeness seems to me like something which should be defended rather than criticised.

It also seems to me that your definition of "niceness" is quite independent from conflict avoidance and worrying about what others think - which are what I think some of your problems with niceness stem from. These are also two traits I certainly don't have, if only because I'm completely oblivious to what other people think of me. (Similarly I think the big reason that the geek social fallacies haven't affected me is that I don't like other people enough to have the kinds of friendship groups that suffer from geek social fallacies. My natural response to cliquey groups of friends is to run like hell.)

[alias_sqbr]

I have conflated a bunch of stuff, it's very much an "all my thoughts about things relating to niceness" braindump. I tried writing more focussed posts but they never came out right.

I don't see that I'm conflating politeness and PCness in this post (I can't see that anything I've said is related to PCness apart from my last paragraph, which is talking about a specific type of situation without PCness or politeness) But as it happens I do see "PC" language as part of politeness: it's a set of general rules used to avoid hurting people's feelings, and like any sort of politeness it's pretty good most of the time but can be too rigid if you apply it dogmatically or place following the "rules" above actual decent behaviour.

The post ended up just being a criticism of niceness/politeness without mentioning it's upsides, mainly because I see those as fairly obvious (to me :)) and couldn't be bothered. But yes, politeness (including careful use of language) does definitely have it's place, and most of the time is the best approach, all things being equal. But there are times when politeness has to be secondary to other more important considerations, and most importantly you shouldn't look at an argument and assume that the more "polite" party is in the right or morally superior. (Not saying you're doing that, but some people do)

I think behaviour matching my definition of "niceness" often follows from conflict avoidance and worrying about what others think, but does not necessarily imply it. Some people really are just naturally passive, friendly etc, or make the choice to be that way for other reasons. I'm just criticising people like me who tend to be nice out of selfishness and then act all morally superior about it.

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

Interesting post - thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Being 'nice' in the way you describe seems to be quite insidious. It's as much a rejection of effective (and empathetic) communication as being rude and aggressive.

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely.

I mean some "nice"ness is actually nice, in the sense of being effective (and empathetic) etc. But so is some rude aggression. There's no way to easily judge that stuff from tone alone.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

(I'm going to start with a disclaimer because I'm stressed out by some very harsh RL stuff at the mo and also probably heading for a crash - this may not make sense.)

I can equate with some of this, but sort of coming from the other direction. It has taken me a long time to realise that I can't cope with emotional situations, but the way I can't cope is not to try to be nice and avoid them, but to fight. I get a huge adrenaline surge, my brain seems to go into overdrive and I move into a mode where I tend to mock, intimidate, and generally beat people with my tongue and my brain until they are quivering. Afterwards, I tend to feel bad about this :(

So in the past few years I have come to accept that I am not safe in an emotional situation, I need to walk away. And I have spent some effort learning how to do that. I don't always get it right of course, sometimes I leave it too long and cause hurt, frequently to people I actually like and admire, which sucks. :( But I am getting better.

The trouble is this means there are lots of conversations/arguments where I can't join in, because they are taking place in an emotional way. But I still may be very interested in or even strongly invested in the topic, and have lots that I would like to say and discuss if only I could do it in a non-emotional fashion.

So I have become invested in finding or creating safe spaces where I can have those important conversations in a non-emotional fashion. Hence I highly value niceness, and actively seek it out. It's a skill I really want to learn. It makes me sad seeing you rate it as a weakness - being able to control your emotions is a really, really valuable skill. I envy you.

[alias_sqbr]

Your comment made sense, but I'm pretty sleepy today so my reply may not :)

It does sound like you're coming at this from the opposite direction, which I imagine gives a very different perspective.

This post was all about the downsides of niceness and none of it's upsides, since I started from a position of thinking niceness was always the best way of dealing with things under all circumstances, and I've slowly realised it's not. Which is not to say it's always bad, just that it has costs as well as benefits and it's important to be aware of them.

If (as for me, and from the sounds of things, you) niceness is almost always the best option then that's ok, but we have to be aware of the limitations that places on us and the fact that others work differently.

I still work best in low-conflict "nice" discussions, and that's ok. The point is that people who don't want to or can't talk that way (in a given context) are not necessarily in the wrong, I should just avoid engaging with them. And if I can't avoid it and am forced into a confrontation then that doesn't necessarily make the person who forced me into it bad, and there are some situations in my own life where, as much as I dislike confrontation, it really is the only way to deal with things.

For example, my ex boyfriend turned any disagreement into an emotional confrontation (he didn't get angry so much as twist things so that I came off as irrationally angry at him. He was such a prat) So I had two chocies: avoid confrontation and be "nice", or say how I felt and have a huge argument.

So I was "nice" for two years, went a little mad from all the repressed emotion, and then I dumped him, and then we had a three month long horrible nasty argument, and I am still venting all the bitterness I built up, over ten years later. And as horrible as that argument was it had to happen, and I came out of it stronger (if bitter)

Being emotionally repressed isn't better or worse than being unable to control your emotions, it's the flipside of the continuum whose happy medium is being able to express your emotions but not be controlled by them. I see it as a useful bandaid to my neuroses but not a perfect solution, and I'm trying to work towards a more balanced behaviour pattern where I'm mostly "nice" (since I like being that way) but am able to be "not nice" when the situation demands it, and don't freak out when people are "not nice" to me.

It's like having a fear of heights(*): on the whole you can just avoid going up towers etc and that's all well and good, but sometimes there's stuff in high places you can't avoid dealing with.

(*)Which I also have :)

[spiralsheep.livejournal.com]

There's more than one self-declared "white ally" I'd like to understand that they're not being an ally when they're sounding and/or behaving like a concern troll.

Thank you for helping me put that into words.

[alias_sqbr]

I'm still coming to terms with the fact that no matter how good my intentions or how much better I think my approach is it's just not my place to say. Only giving POC a chance to speak when they agree with white people isn't actually giving them a voice.

Anyway, glad my rambles were helpful :)

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

politeness meant lying about what you really feel

hey it's me

[alias_sqbr]

But you're not a guy I met in the late 90s!

Although..I didn't know you back then. Maybe you were not, in fact, the young teenage girl I would assume you would have been, but a 20 something guy, and then there was some sort of accident in the physics lab which turned you into a 12 year old girl and you were forced to create a new life for yourself...

Oh, wait, I get what you mean now, never mind.

[sanguinity]

Slightly more on topic, now (but not THAT much more)...

I understand "nice", "polite", "kind", and "respectful" to be different things, even though they get used more or less interchangeably.

"Nice" is something like wanting to be liked, and wanting everyone's emotions to be quite and smooth.

"Polite" is... something like the Geneva Conventions. A formal code of acceptable conduct, which has nothing to do with being nice to people. As Miss Manners points out over and over again, one can be polite and cruel, polite and aggressive, polite and ruthless, etc. There is no requirement to be kind, or put people at their ease, or any other such thing. There is a strong emphasis on leaving people room to save face, so it tends to act as a choke on how fast hostilities can increase, or how damaging hostilities can get, but it was never intended to prevent hostilities.

"Kind" is caring about how the other person feels and trying to not let/make them feel bad.

"Respect" is.... er... respect. (Crap. The verbalization was almost working!)

Anyway, of all the the above ways to treat people, "respect" is pretty awesome, "polite" has a lot to be said for it (there is a basic level of respect built in, if you learn the code well), "kind" isn't bad (although it can slide into condescension RIGHT quick if you're not careful to keep "respect" at hand, too), and "nice" is... Pretty damn shallow. Of all the goals you might have in your interactions with other people, "wanting to be liked" is far less important, in my mind, than "treating people with respect." That's just basic ethics there.

In terms of ally-work, "nice" tends to turn into "wanting to be liked by everyone, including the people who hold -ist beliefs AND the people who are victims of those beliefs," which is a frickin' DISASTER. I think that the better someone gets at letting go of the goal of "nice" in favor of "respect" (with or without liking), the better one gets at being an ally, and the better able one is to own one's privileges.

I also believe that aiming for respect, with or without liking, is way more likely to put you in a place where a lot of people like you than "nice" does. But to make it work, you do have to first be willing to not be liked.

[alias_sqbr]

*nods to everything*

terms of ally-work, "nice" tends to turn into "wanting to be liked by everyone, including the people who hold -ist beliefs AND the people who are victims of those beliefs," which is a frickin' DISASTER

YES. And I have a problem with this with sexists etc too, my niceness runs deep.

Niceness is phatic

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

One big problem I have with "niceness" -- as you put it -- is that it involves an awful lot of framing and preparing any sort of topic for discussion, and that imposes a not inconsiderable additional burden of speaking and listening on the discussion's participants, while communicating very little. It is phatic speech emphasising sociability over information transfer.

I think that this problem is evident in the way that you express yourself on this blog. You often commence with several disclaimers, continue with constant qualifications, and conclude with apology and self-deprecation. You have to write those words, and we have to read them.

I wouldn't get hung up about it, as to a large extent it's a beneficial practice. You have tended to write about sensitive subjects of late, which deserve extra care. But perhaps it can be taken too far. It can make your arguments less compelling by clouding them in pusillanimousness, needlessly weakening the authority of what could perhaps be condensed to more striking propositions.

My challenge: write your next post on race / gender / class without any framing niceness. That would include avoiding any mention that you're not being nice for once, or any reference to this post.

*wishes I'd gotten around to making that teal dear icon*

[alias_sqbr]

*googles phatic*

The thing is, both my overwordiness and "niceness" are both coping mechanisms to deal with other flaws, namely the fact that I'm really bad at telling the difference between what's obvious to other people and what's only obvious to me, and the fact that I deal really badly with conflict. (nb this is an oversimplification)

If I write succinct posts (and I have tried this) people will misunderstand me, and I'll spend significantly more words clarifying than I would have if I'd just been a bit wordier in the first place, and the conversation will be spent figuring out what I meant to say rather than actually discussing it. If I'm not "nice" people will get angry and I will Freak The Hell Out. I'm not sure my post gets across just how much conflict freaks me out.

So I'm working on the way I deal with communication and conflict, and then every now and then trying out being a bit more succinct and curt etc and seeing what happens (as well as coming up with stuff like the disclaimers post which at least gets it out of the way), but the solution is not to rip the bandaid off without making sure the wound is healed. *resists the urge to soften that statement*

Also, for the last few months I've been trying to get a grip on life with my new, much stupider brain. My current level of "normal" is what I used to consider "Too stupid and tactless to be allowed on the internet", and it's caused me quite a few misunderstandings (not so much on my lj as elsewhere) which makes me extra cautious.

And hey, at least I use cut tags :P

[amonitrate.livejournal.com]

here via metafandom.

But it means I end up keeping silent on things that upset me, and not disagreeing with people who I know won't take it well, and overall not getting what I want and being emotionally repressed.

I've been realizing the same thing about myself and completely agree with your post.

[alias_sqbr]

Thanks!

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I find a lot of niceness is politeness, is strategies to prevent confusion, is conflict avoidance, rather than being about truly caring about the other or actually being 'nice'. I am far less 'nice' to many of my close friends, because there is less possibility of getting things confused, of us getting the wrong impression about the other, etc -- we already know each others real position, we already trust in how the other feels about things, we don't have to put in disclaimery language to cover our arse as much. But then some of 'niceness' really is about being 'nice', It is hard to tell which is which, because we just don't think about it as much.

The boundaries of what is acceptable debate can, and should, vary by forum. I don't think it is OK for someone to say 'that is not acceptable debate', but I do think it is ok for someone to say 'that is not acceptable debate *here*', presuming it is their forum and they are not abusing their position to win a specific argument, and providing there is consistency etc. The problem with sprawling internet/LJ debates is many things are both sort of half private/half public space with no set rules about what is acceptable (or rules that are not obvious). People follow a thread from one forum to another, and don't realise that perhaps the rules have changed, and come charging angrily into a place with a quite set culture and idea of acceptable discourse, or into spaces that people think of as quite personal, and an inevitable explosion of anger (usually on both sides) follows. On the other hand, you also have people applying said rules inconsistently (or consistently unfairly, to suppress a particular POV that they dislike), and the same sort of explosion happens, and it is hard to tell the two apart -- or perhaps they do, in fact, overlap for different POVs. There are still no universally recognised universal rules of politeness for internet discussion, and even if there were, polite rules followed by obnoxious people are almost as bad in practice.

I've been reminded of certain academic discourses I have seen, where the rules of politeness for that forum are followed religiously -- lots of polite roundabout discussion, very formal and constrained -- but the actual content is mostly seething resentment expressed through very formally expressed attempts to find fatal flaws in the others arguments. Rules of discourse can have very little to do with being nice.

Every geek should read the five geek fallacies, yes. Our culture is dysfunctional. Probably not more than any other sub-culture, but it is important to recognise consistent problems.

The Nice Guy thing is important, though I read it more as a discourse about gender relations and roles than about community debate. But it does make the point very clearly that for many people, a certain level of 'niceness' is just a strategy, and doesn't involve actually thinking about the other person whatsoever (and can, in fact, be used as a controlling, manipulative, argument that displays no actual care at all). I worry a bit about the Nice Guy thing, actually -- it is very much the sort of person I do not wish to be, or be mistaken for, but I know just not wanting to be doesn't mean I won't (and everyone can fall into the dark side when stressed to hell),

[alias_sqbr]

Very sleepy today but: very well put. I agree with the "people expect the rules of discourse to stay the same everywhere" thing as well.

I am far less 'nice' to many of my close friends, because there is less possibility of getting things confused, of us getting the wrong impression about the other, etc

Me too (I have an incredibly mean sense of humour, which not a lot of people see. Poor old Cam gets the worst of it :)). And on the other hand, I'm particularly polite to the kind of people who I know will react unpleasantly to being contradicted and I can't be bothered arguing with, and then they think I like them :/

[sanguinity]

Well, lookit that. I'm not a geek. I've long said I wasn't a geek, not really, because while I like traditionally geeky topics, actual geek gatherings make me want to flee, flee, flee...

And reading those five fallacies? None of them resonate with me, except in a "so THAT'S what they think they're doing? Who'da guessed?" sort of way.


...oh, erm, sorry. You were posting about niceness, weren't you?

[alias_sqbr]

Heh. How rude of you to go off topic! :)

Yes, I think geek personality types are somewhat distinct from geek interests. I know people with the opposite experience to you: they encountered geek social circles peripherally (via relationships etc) and stuck around purely for the feeling of fitting in.

Myself I definitely have both and the only problems I have with geek social groups are somewhat incidental (ie they're very male, and have all the usual "group of like minded people" issues)

So I guess if you ever come visit WA I shouldn't invite you to Buffy night, huh? :)

(edited to use appropriate icon. If I practice using it on you I might be brave enough to use it on someone who's actually being derailing :))

[lilysea.livejournal.com]

Hmm, interesting post, thank you. ^_^

I am too brain-dead right this minute to say more than,

"I can totally relate to the conflict-avoidance thing."

and like you, I value honesty, truth, non-hypocrisy etc.

I'm finding in 2008 and 2009 that I've been making friends with three LOUD women who speak their mind without second-guessing their audience - women who can be tactful / compassionate / kind / thoughtful, but who are also honest, strong and forthright and brave[1].

(One of these women I've known since 2003 through a mutual friend, but until 2008 I found her far too loud and in-your-face and confrontational to want to spend time with.)

and I look at these women and see role models, and I think "*I* would like to be more like that."

I've discovered the words 'preference' and 'prefer' is very useful when trying to reach an agreement or compromise.

"I would prefer that we do Z-thing because... [reason]"

It lowers the stakes for everyone involved: if person A prefers Z-thing and person B prefers H-thing, there's room for negotiation, disagreement without anger, compromise, solutions that meet everyone's needs.

(As opposed to saying "I want to do Z-thing" "We *must* do Z-thing" "We *should* do Z-thing".)

[1] Which is in no way intended to imply that my other friends aren't. Did I mention that I was brain-dead at the moment? ^_^

[alias_sqbr]

I look at these women and see role models, and I think "*I* would like to be more like that."

I've had similar experiences, it made me question exactly what ideal I was striving towards.

"I would prefer that we do Z-thing because... [reason]"

Yes, that can be very helpful. I don't think I'll ever stop preferring low conflict interactions, but I've stopped so much confusing that preference with an absolute good.

Though in the other direction, sometimes people can try and excuse bad behaviour using that argument. For example fanfic fandom has an (on the whole very sensible) general rule that "If you don't like a kind of story, don't read it, don't go on long rants about how Noone Should Write That Crap". But I've then seen arguments along the lines of "You may not like me writing racist characters, but noones forcing you to read my fanfiction" etc.

[callistra.livejournal.com]

You should read The Dance of Pretence. I think I might have it here, but I'm not sure. I still have babalon_93's copy of Dance of Anger though!

I am also learning a lot about my own behaviours from race!fail09. I've picked up some of the things I do in arguments to quash it - and strawman arguments too.

[alias_sqbr]

What's "the dance of pretense"? (Google was not helpful)

I squirmed in awkward recognition at the "I am not the moderator" post. There's been quite a bit of subtle passive aggressive fail in amongst the loud shouty sort which has definitely made me question myself.

[ariaflame.livejournal.com]

But it means I end up keeping silent on things that upset me, and not disagreeing with people who I know won't take it well, and overall not getting what I want and being emotionally repressed.

I understand that... I am fairly similar, though I've also found that I've gone from not being able to express what I want, to, in a certain extent, not 'wanting' anything much, so that I don't get too disappointed when I don't get.

Except more sleep. Still want that.

[alias_sqbr]

I've also found that I've gone from not being able to express what I want, to, in a certain extent, not 'wanting' anything much, so that I don't get too disappointed when I don't get.

I'm too selfish to put up with that :)

Around her 45th birthday my mum suddenly went "Screw you all, I'm sick of being self sacrificing" and starting to to call my family on their crap(*), and for the 5 or so years since then has just been constantly venting decades and decades of bitterness. Since she and I are very similar in a lot of ways I'm a little worried that might happen to me if I'm not careful.

That's how I justify it to myself anyway!

(*)Not me, I'm nice :) I say with a certain level of irony..

[col-ki.livejournal.com]

There is a marked difference between being
a) polite and compassionate; and
b) cowardly.

I too used to hide behind the concept of "niceness" to justify conflict-avoidance. Not that I don't still hide from conflict, but I don't dress it up as a virtue anymore.

If I call them on it but am nice to them later? Well, I may still be being complicit (I'm still thinking about that one)

I think you can disagree with someone and still be friends, or at least friendly, as long you don't excuse them simply because you're friends.

[alias_sqbr]

There is a marked difference between being
a) polite and compassionate; and
b) cowardly.

I too used to hide behind the concept of "niceness" to justify conflict-avoidance. Not that I don't still hide from conflict, but I don't dress it up as a virtue anymore.

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I see it.

I think you can disagree with someone and still be friends, or at least friendly, as long you don't excuse them simply because you're friends.

Disagree with, yes. But for example when I was in highschool one of my friends was frequently cruel to another of my friends. I told her to stop (in my at that time very passive way) but the rest of the time treated her as a good friend, and in retrospect I feel like I should have said "I'm not going to stay friends with you if you keep behaving that way".

[black-samvara.livejournal.com]

*hugs* it's a sodding enormous, complex interaction and I keep writing the first half of a post that in my head is called 'the Rules of Engagement'.

I'm used to some basic rules being in place during emotionally difficult conversations and I do very well with people who use the same rules and surprisingly well with a lot of people who don't. It breaks down completely with people who believe you shouldn't talk about x at all.

The rules are very simple.

1. The person who brings up the issue gets heard
2. The person who listens, listens. They also clarify / reflect.

(both parties try to be compassionate)

3. Resolution is negotiated based on a whole bunch of things and may even be deferred to some point in the future in order to create a safe space for person 1. to talk and for person 2. to deal with what was said.

Being person 1 is hard, you have a responsibility to bring up an issue and be willing to articulate it and explore it and do so in good faith. It's not about proving someone else is a bad person or punishing them. You aren't allowed to bring up everything that's ever annoyed you ever, you get one issue at a time.

Being person 2 is is hard, you have to remember it's not about you. At all. It's about person 1. and maybe, if it looks doable - some sort of resolution. You have to be willing to treat whatever person 1. says as if it's real, and important and you have to help person 1. feel safe enough to want to talk to you again.

I can talk about anything if I know I can trust person 2. to treat me like my feelings are important to them and not to tell me I'm wrong / crazy / not allowed to feel that way / not entitled to feel that way / not gay enough / not feminist enough / not bright enough / too loud / too rude / check bingo card here.

I can listen to anyone if I know they are not just wasting my time/energy by stirring up hurt without being interested in eventual resolution

The exact opposite of this model is one I think of as the military model - it's not very useful.

1. Admit nothing
2. Deny everything
3. Make counter-accusations

[alias_sqbr]

I can talk about anything if I know I can trust person 2. to treat me like my feelings are important to them and not to tell me I'm wrong / crazy / not allowed to feel that way / not entitled to feel that way / not gay enough / not feminist enough / not bright enough / too loud / too rude / check bingo card here.

I can listen to anyone if I know they are not just wasting my time/energy by stirring up hurt without being interested in eventual resolution

I like all of this. I'm not sure it's 100% the way I think of things but the basic gist is pretty spot on. Though unfortunately a lot of people (myself included) are able to follow these rules a lot of the time but have certain blind spots. Also I think sometimes it's too much for person 2 to take, not through any flaw on their part but there are some admissions you don't want to hear. (I'm not sure I can explain what I mean by that though, it's something I'm getting my head around)

The exact opposite of this model is one I think of as the military model - it's not very useful
1. Admit nothing
2. Deny everything
3. Make counter-accusations

Oh boy do I hate that model. There have been many times when I have been happier to talking to people on the other "side" of an argument who have an attitude more like your rules of engagement than I do with those on my "side" who use the military model.

[goth-grrl.livejournal.com]

Probably more for me to take from this post than I want to admit to. And dear god thankyou for that Geek Fallacies link, I've been almost convinced that it was all in my head.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, the first time I read it was one of those incredible "You mean it's not just me??" things :)

[melberon.livejournal.com]

This post bugs me for reasons which I'm not quite sure I can consciously explain yet. Perhaps when I figure out whether or not I fit your definition of "nice" I might have more to say.

It does feel a bit like you're conflating politeness (certain standards for the form of one's behaviour) with political correctness (adhering absolutely to certain ideologies and silencing those who speak out against them). Politeness seems to me like something which should be defended rather than criticised.

It also seems to me that your definition of "niceness" is quite independent from conflict avoidance and worrying about what others think - which are what I think some of your problems with niceness stem from. These are also two traits I certainly don't have, if only because I'm completely oblivious to what other people think of me. (Similarly I think the big reason that the geek social fallacies haven't affected me is that I don't like other people enough to have the kinds of friendship groups that suffer from geek social fallacies. My natural response to cliquey groups of friends is to run like hell.)

[alias_sqbr]

I have conflated a bunch of stuff, it's very much an "all my thoughts about things relating to niceness" braindump. I tried writing more focussed posts but they never came out right.

I don't see that I'm conflating politeness and PCness in this post (I can't see that anything I've said is related to PCness apart from my last paragraph, which is talking about a specific type of situation without PCness or politeness) But as it happens I do see "PC" language as part of politeness: it's a set of general rules used to avoid hurting people's feelings, and like any sort of politeness it's pretty good most of the time but can be too rigid if you apply it dogmatically or place following the "rules" above actual decent behaviour.

The post ended up just being a criticism of niceness/politeness without mentioning it's upsides, mainly because I see those as fairly obvious (to me :)) and couldn't be bothered. But yes, politeness (including careful use of language) does definitely have it's place, and most of the time is the best approach, all things being equal. But there are times when politeness has to be secondary to other more important considerations, and most importantly you shouldn't look at an argument and assume that the more "polite" party is in the right or morally superior. (Not saying you're doing that, but some people do)

I think behaviour matching my definition of "niceness" often follows from conflict avoidance and worrying about what others think, but does not necessarily imply it. Some people really are just naturally passive, friendly etc, or make the choice to be that way for other reasons. I'm just criticising people like me who tend to be nice out of selfishness and then act all morally superior about it.

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

Interesting post - thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Being 'nice' in the way you describe seems to be quite insidious. It's as much a rejection of effective (and empathetic) communication as being rude and aggressive.

[alias_sqbr]

Absolutely.

I mean some "nice"ness is actually nice, in the sense of being effective (and empathetic) etc. But so is some rude aggression. There's no way to easily judge that stuff from tone alone.