OK, I have read the comments you linked. My understanding is this:
You understand that you have a reputation for making comments perceived as social attacks, although you don’t intend them as such.
You don’t care whether or not the other person feels insulted by what you have to say. It’s just not a moral consideration for your commenting behavior.
Your aesthetic is that you prefer to accept that what you have to say has an insulting meaning, and to just say it clearly and succinctly.
Do you care about the manner in which other people talk to you? For example, if somebody wished to say something with an insulting meaning to you, would you prefer them to say it to you in the same way you say such things to others?
(Incidentally, I don’t know who’s been going through our comment thread downvoting you, but it wasn’t me. I’m saying this because I now see myself being downvoted, and I suspect it may be retaliation from you, but I am not sure about that).
You understand that you have a reputation for making comments perceived as social attacks, although you don’t intend them as such.
I have (it would seem) a reputation for making certain sorts of comments, which are of course not intended as “attacks” of any sort (social, personal, etc.), but which are sometimes perceived as such—and which perception, in my view, reflects quite poorly on those who thus perceive said comments.
You don’t care whether or not the other person feels insulted by what you have to say. It’s just not a moral consideration for your commenting behavior.
Certainly I would prefer that things were otherwise. (Isn’t this often the case, for all of us?) But this cannot be a reason to avoid making such comments; to do so would be even more blameworthy, morally speaking, than is the habit on the part of certain interlocutors to take those comments as attacks in the first place. (See also this old comment thread, which deals with the general questions of whether, and how, to alter one’s behavior in response to purported offense experienced by some person.)
Your aesthetic is that you prefer to accept that what you have to say has an insulting meaning, and to just say it clearly and succinctly.
I don’t know if “aesthetic” is the right term here. Perhaps you mean something by it other than what I understand the term to mean.
In any case, indeed, clarity and succinctness are the key considerations here—out of respect for both my interlocutors and for any readers, who surely deserve not to have their time wasted by having to read through nonsense and fluff.
Do you care about the manner in which other people talk to you? For example, if somebody wished to say something with an insulting meaning to you, would you prefer them to say it to you in the same way you say such things to others?
I would prefer that people say things to me in whatever way is most appropriate and effective, given the circumstances. Generally it is better to be more concise, more clear, more comprehensive, more unambiguous. (Some of those goals conflict, you may notice! Such is life; we must navigate such trade-offs.)
I have other preferences as well, though they are less important. I dislike vulgarity, for example, and name-calling. Avoiding these things is, I think, no more than basic courtesy. I do not employ them myself, and certainly prefer not to hear them addressed to me, or even in my presence. (This has never presented a problem, in either, direction, on Less Wrong, and I don’t expect this to change.) Of course one can conceive of cases when these preferences must be violated in order to serve the goals of conciseness, clarity, etc.; in such a case I’d grin and bear it, I suppose. (But I can’t recall encountering such.)
Now that I’ve answered your questions, here’s one of my own:
What, exactly, is the point of this line of questioning? We seem to be going very deep down this rabbit hole, litigating these baroque details of connotation and perception… and it seems to me that nothing of any consequence hinges on any of this. What makes this tangent even slightly worth either my time or yours?
I have (it would seem) a reputation for making certain sorts of comments, which are of course not intended as “attacks” of any sort (social, personal, etc.), but which are sometimes perceived as such—and which perception, in my view, reflects quite poorly on those who thus perceive said comments.
Just a small note that “Said interpreting someone as [interpreting Said’s comment as an attack]” is, in my own personal experience, not particularly correlated with [that person in fact having interpreted Said’s comment as an attack].
Said has, in the past, seemed to have perceived me as perceiving him as attacking me, when in fact I was objecting to his comments for other reasons, and did not perceive them as an attack, and did not describe them as attacks, either.
What, exactly, is the point of this line of questioning? We seem to be going very deep down this rabbit hole, litigating these baroque details of connotation and perception… and it seems to me that nothing of any consequence hinges on any of this. What makes this tangent even slightly worth either my time or yours?
I wrote about five paragraphs in response to this, which I am fine with sharing with you on two conditions. First, because my honest answer contains quite a bit of potentially insulting commentary toward you (expressed in the same matter of fact tone I’ve tried to adopt throughout our interaction here), I want your explicit approval to share it. I am open to not sharing it, DMing it to you, or posting it here.
Secondly, if I do share it, I want you to precommit not to respond with insulting comments directed at me.
Secondly, if I do share it, I want you to precommit not to respond with insulting comments directed at me.
This seems like a very strange, and strangely unfair, condition. I can’t make much sense of it unless I read “insulting” as “deliberately insulting”, or “intentionally insulting”, or something like it. (But surely you don’t mean it that way, given the conversational context…?)
Could you explain the point of this? I find that I’m increasingly perplexed by just what the heck is going on in this conversation, and this latest comment has made me more confused than ever…
Yes, it’s definitely an unfair condition, and I knew that when I wrote it. Nevertheless—that is my condition.
If you would prefer a vague answer with no preconditions, I am satisfying my curiosity about somebody who thinks very differently about commenting norms than I do.
(Incidentally, I don’t know who’s been going through our comment thread downvoting you, but it wasn’t me. I’m saying this because I now see myself being downvoted, and I suspect it may be retaliation from you, but I am not sure about that).
I did (weak-)downvote one comment of yours in this comment section, but only one. If you’re seeing multiple comments downvoted, then those downvotes aren’t from me. (Of course I don’t know how I’d prove that… but for whatever my word’s worth, you have it.)
OK, I have read the comments you linked. My understanding is this:
You understand that you have a reputation for making comments perceived as social attacks, although you don’t intend them as such.
You don’t care whether or not the other person feels insulted by what you have to say. It’s just not a moral consideration for your commenting behavior.
Your aesthetic is that you prefer to accept that what you have to say has an insulting meaning, and to just say it clearly and succinctly.
Do you care about the manner in which other people talk to you? For example, if somebody wished to say something with an insulting meaning to you, would you prefer them to say it to you in the same way you say such things to others?
(Incidentally, I don’t know who’s been going through our comment thread downvoting you, but it wasn’t me. I’m saying this because I now see myself being downvoted, and I suspect it may be retaliation from you, but I am not sure about that).
I have (it would seem) a reputation for making certain sorts of comments, which are of course not intended as “attacks” of any sort (social, personal, etc.), but which are sometimes perceived as such—and which perception, in my view, reflects quite poorly on those who thus perceive said comments.
Certainly I would prefer that things were otherwise. (Isn’t this often the case, for all of us?) But this cannot be a reason to avoid making such comments; to do so would be even more blameworthy, morally speaking, than is the habit on the part of certain interlocutors to take those comments as attacks in the first place. (See also this old comment thread, which deals with the general questions of whether, and how, to alter one’s behavior in response to purported offense experienced by some person.)
I don’t know if “aesthetic” is the right term here. Perhaps you mean something by it other than what I understand the term to mean.
In any case, indeed, clarity and succinctness are the key considerations here—out of respect for both my interlocutors and for any readers, who surely deserve not to have their time wasted by having to read through nonsense and fluff.
I would prefer that people say things to me in whatever way is most appropriate and effective, given the circumstances. Generally it is better to be more concise, more clear, more comprehensive, more unambiguous. (Some of those goals conflict, you may notice! Such is life; we must navigate such trade-offs.)
I have other preferences as well, though they are less important. I dislike vulgarity, for example, and name-calling. Avoiding these things is, I think, no more than basic courtesy. I do not employ them myself, and certainly prefer not to hear them addressed to me, or even in my presence. (This has never presented a problem, in either, direction, on Less Wrong, and I don’t expect this to change.) Of course one can conceive of cases when these preferences must be violated in order to serve the goals of conciseness, clarity, etc.; in such a case I’d grin and bear it, I suppose. (But I can’t recall encountering such.)
Now that I’ve answered your questions, here’s one of my own:
What, exactly, is the point of this line of questioning? We seem to be going very deep down this rabbit hole, litigating these baroque details of connotation and perception… and it seems to me that nothing of any consequence hinges on any of this. What makes this tangent even slightly worth either my time or yours?
Just a small note that “Said interpreting someone as [interpreting Said’s comment as an attack]” is, in my own personal experience, not particularly correlated with [that person in fact having interpreted Said’s comment as an attack].
Said has, in the past, seemed to have perceived me as perceiving him as attacking me, when in fact I was objecting to his comments for other reasons, and did not perceive them as an attack, and did not describe them as attacks, either.
The comment you quoted was not, in fact, about you. It was about this (which you can see if you read the thread in which you’re commenting).
Note that in the linked discussion thread, it is not I, but someone else, who claims that certain of my comments are perceived as attacks.
In short, your comment is a non sequitur in this context.
No, it’s relevant context, especially given that you’re saying in the above ~[and I judge people for it].
(To be clear, I didn’t think that the comment I quoted was about me. Added a small edit to make that clearer.)
I wrote about five paragraphs in response to this, which I am fine with sharing with you on two conditions. First, because my honest answer contains quite a bit of potentially insulting commentary toward you (expressed in the same matter of fact tone I’ve tried to adopt throughout our interaction here), I want your explicit approval to share it. I am open to not sharing it, DMing it to you, or posting it here.
Secondly, if I do share it, I want you to precommit not to respond with insulting comments directed at me.
This seems like a very strange, and strangely unfair, condition. I can’t make much sense of it unless I read “insulting” as “deliberately insulting”, or “intentionally insulting”, or something like it. (But surely you don’t mean it that way, given the conversational context…?)
Could you explain the point of this? I find that I’m increasingly perplexed by just what the heck is going on in this conversation, and this latest comment has made me more confused than ever…
Yes, it’s definitely an unfair condition, and I knew that when I wrote it. Nevertheless—that is my condition.
If you would prefer a vague answer with no preconditions, I am satisfying my curiosity about somebody who thinks very differently about commenting norms than I do.
Alright, thanks.
I did (weak-)downvote one comment of yours in this comment section, but only one. If you’re seeing multiple comments downvoted, then those downvotes aren’t from me. (Of course I don’t know how I’d prove that… but for whatever my word’s worth, you have it.)
I believe you, and it doesn’t matter to me. I just didn’t want you to perceive me incorrectly as downvoting you.