Posted by zeugma on May 7, 2006, at 7:31:03
In reply to Re: Civility IRL, productivity and good relationsh » Dinah, posted by Estella on May 6, 2006, at 23:12:18
this post is purely an attempt to dissipate conflict, and anything i say is purely my own perception.
>I just really really don't understand. I just really really am upset by the fact that I don't seem to know Special K at all. I guess I shouldn't be. I should just realize that I need to adjust my mental image of you, or get to know you as Special K. Or maybe even be glad that you are feeling comfortable enough to show more of yourself here. I'll have to work hard on that attitude adjustment.>
the above strikes me as sincere and not something designed to provoke ill will. It is often difficult to like, sincerely like, others. For myself, I keep trying to understand the concept of civility, and maybe it is the bare minimum necessary for people to get along. for Dinah it is clearly more, and while that may be too much to reasonably expect (I don't know, i can be quite unreasonable about some things so my interpretations are not sacrosanct) the goal is a laudable one.
>
>
>
> i don't like you very much either right now>>it didn't sound like Dinah was disliking you.
>
> its not okay to suggest that someone recovering from anorexia is fat even when that was implied in her post (and how was the respondant to know she was recovering from anorexia)
>
> but its okay to suggest that parts are... not liked.>>tact. But this is an IRL issue, that i have some experience with.
One criterion of civility, that i think was made by Auntie Mel, was that you wouldn't want to say anything about an individual that would be insulting if said to their face. hence, Dinah's comments about gossip in an earlier discussion. there are people IRL i know who are a mixture of good and bad traits. i try to focus on the good, and am reluctant to speak badly of anyone who has done a good turn to me, regardless of other character elements present. i suppose that is loyalty, not civility. civility to me is a bare minimum. i'll try again.
encouraging an anorexic to slim down further is telling the person to destroy him- or herself. saying he or she is fat (if she or he is anorexic- if she or he is not then it may be rude) is equivalent to that and advances the same end. not even uncivil, i would say it is - i dont know what to call it, what do you call someone who is trying to destroy you?
it did not sound like what dinah was saying sounded like an encouragement to further split up parts.
unfortuately, many posters whom i greatly admire (chemist, larry, special k) have been the ones most severely hurt by the rules here. (there are many others of course, whom i admire equally well but who may have been hurt in a slightly different way. i don't wish to slight those posters, i see a diference but there may well be none. let's just say then that those are three who come immediately to mind.)
always legitimate to feel hurt. the problem is that rules are one thing, judgment another. my own judgments are very idiosyncratic. idiosyncrasy is a value-neutral term IMO.
this is a diverse group and an idiosyncratic one. idiosyncrasy for me is appreciated. a value-neutral term in itself, but subjectively valued by me. dinah seems compelled by her idiosyncrasy to understand special k, a laudable desire.
i have a lot of experience with these issues IRL. it only takes a few misunderstandings to nullify numerous successes. the misunderstandings can be very destructive.
-z
poster:zeugma
thread:633401
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/640893.html