Sam Vara wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:10 pm
First, because your definition of what might "reasonably be taken personally by someone else" is so idiosyncratic as to be unworkable on this forum.
It is not meant to be workable for the forum. It is meant to be workable for oneself. In other words, when one makes a personalized comment, playing the person rather than the ball, one can anticipate unexpected responses. In which case one can take personal responsibility for the words spoken. As the poll shows, different people have different ideas of what comments might reasonably
be taken personally.
This began with my use of a phrase which you interpreted as being "personal". I immediately and repeatedly assured you that it was not, yet you merely insisted that it was.
You did more than that. You doubled down and made additional personalized comments, addressing my state of mind and my characteristics. You did not say your comment was not intended as being personal. Rather, you said I seemed confused and you have every right to tell me so. But what's the point? That locked thread is beside the point. I opened this Topic because I assumed (incorrectly) that it would receive a friendly reception and serious discussion.
Since then, Ven. Dhammanando has also pointed out that this insistence was based upon an erroneous assumption that you persisted with despite my attempts at correcting it.
The point is that it was a personalized comment, and when we make such comments, we might be mindful that the person spoken to may take it personally. At which point the Dhamma teaches taking personal responsibility for one's words, not blaming the other for his or her failure to hear what you intended to say. We all are prone to this mistake in communication. I thought it was worth serious discussion in this Topic.
This was your unreasonable interpretation; it flew in the face of all available evidence to the contrary, and had not one scrap of confirmation outside your mind.
The phrase "your confusion" is a personalized comment to the extent that it addresses the state of mind of the person spoken to, rather than the subject. You appeared to play the person, not the ball. When I brought this to your attention, politely asking you to "please" not make further personalized statements, you doubled down and made additional personalized statements, just as Bhante has done, just as retrofuturist has done, etc. All of this makes my point for me. Personalized comments can be misunderstood, and they can be a method of attack, and they can be a method of avoiding the point, namely, playing the person, not the ball.
If you could get away with that kind of interpretation, then you could claim that almost any utterance could be taken personally, in an attempt to close down debate, or gain control.
I don't want to close down debate or gain control of others. I strive for self-control and personal responsibility. You are responsible for your own actions. Oddly, I have no hard feelings toward you at all. This Topic was intended entirely to be a discussion of Right Speech, that is all.
That would have a significant chilling effect upon conversations here.
There are times when we should have a chilling effect on our own conduct, as other repeatedly are telling me here. One time when we should have a chilling effect on our own conduct is when we make a personalized comment about someone, because by making a personalized comment, we are inviting misunderstanding.
And that, in turn, is why I would prefer that people take responsibility for their own interpretations rather than policing other people's speech.
I never in this Topic stated that I wished to police other people's speech. I always have said that I defer to those who operate and provide this DW forum, and I still do. You may be confusing this with the other Topic about disparaging other faiths. There, I do believe tighter controls by the moderators/admin Team would be appropriate. But I never said that personalized comments violate TOS in and of themselves. However, some of the attack in this Topic certainly have violated TOS, but again, that is not my call to make.
You have rejected the position I have expressed regarding how we should take personally responsibility for the words we speak. That is your choice and your kamma. We call make our own choices.
Second, my concern is that your second point - taking personal responsibility for for the words we have spoken/written - is not practiced by you.
Yes it is.
My concern is that the tone and topics of debate here on DW could be adversely affected by someone who is spectacularly hypocritical.
More personalized comments.
As I said earlier, I can respect both the high-minded zealot and the thin-skinned victim; but not both in the same person. You appear to be someone who is struggling to contain extreme anger and touchiness and a desire to police others within a framework of smiley Buddhist sanctimoniousness.
More personalized comments.
That's a very tough schtick, both for you, and for others.
You'll be glad to hear that I take personal responsibility for the above words which could reasonably be taken personally by someone else.
Yes, well you have spoken in a manner which is not based in fact. As has been discussed, this is not a friendly environment, so I guess you do what you think is necessary.