Good comments, Sam Vara.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am
L.N. wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:12 am
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:27 pm
The same would apply to those next words.
Of course, but this is whataboutism. If one's First Words after speaking hurtful words (whether intentionally or not) are even more hurtful and show no regard for the harm caused (intentionally or not), then talking about the same applying to the next words is just a diversion. If one speaks in a manner which offends, one's duty is to attend to one's First Words, not attack the next words from the person spoken so.
Do you ever see any point at which one should take responsibility for the words one has spoken, and then "sweep your side of the street" as discussed in the locked thread? What do you view as being objectionable about acknowledging when you have spoken in a manner which has an unintended negative consequence, but then following up with kindness and self examination?
I'm not sure what you mean by "whataboutism" here.
I may have misunderstood you. Following is the framework for the hypothetical conversation as I understand it:
SPEAKER: "Here is the source of your confusion."
PERSON SPOKEN TO: "Please stop with your personalized comments."
SPEAKER: (Whatever he/she says next are the "First Words.")
PERSON SPOKEN TO: (Whatever he/she says next are the "Next Words.")
Please let me know if this understanding is incorrect. When you stated, "The same would apply to those next words," I understood "Next Words" to be defined as above.
This is whataboutism because it changes the topic of discussion. Instead of discussing appropriate First Words (spoken by SPEAKER), the topic becomes Next Words (spoken by PERSON SPOKEN TO).
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 am If the restraints one has placed on one's own utterances are the correct ones, then they will be fit for purpose regardless of the mental states of others and the claimed mental states of others.
I agree. It is still whataboutism, because we no longer are talking about First Words as defined above.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 amMy duty to others in the context of internet communication is exhausted by Right Speech and the TOS.
That is your personal choice. However, I suggest that you consider whether your First Words following a misunderstanding are also subject to Right Speech and TOS. If, in your opinion, someone misunderstands you, is it your understanding that this then give you license to continue to speak in the same manner?
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 amBoth of these are voluntarily chosen as being personally binding upon me. Anyone else telling me what my duty is (i.e. wishing to restrict my autonomy) is of course very welcome to do so but will need to have very good arguments.
Then you are more patient than I am. If someone wishes to restrict my autonomy, I will not welcome it. You are correct that it is entirely up to you to decide what is your duty. Others may have different ideas about what our duty is to one another in a community such as this.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 amAs a side issue, I'm entirely relaxed about "whataboutism" (although I don't know if it applies here). It's often a useful corrective to hypocrisy.
It may be useful to address hypocrisy, but it should never be used to avoid the subject. "Whataboutism" generally means the strategy of changing the topic. For example, when the United States would point out the human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would say, "what about ...", changing the subject without addressing its own issue. Similarly, when critics of President Trump point out that he should not have equivocated about racism following the Neo Nazi marches a few months back, Trump responded by saying, what about the conduct of those who demonstrated against the Neo Nazis? Yes, the Soviet Union and Trump were attempting to paint their critics as hypocrites. They also were changing the subject and avoiding their own issues.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 amOne always has responsibility for words one has spoken. There is nothing objectionable about acknowledging that one has spoken in a manner which has an unintended negative consequence. But that's not part of the restraints that I choose to place upon my utterances.
This is where you and I part ways. I believe in taking personal responsibility if I have unintentionally said something which might have caused offense.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 amOnce I have made a point, the responses of the person to whom I have made it become part of the reality to which my next utterance applies.
Yes, "part of" the reality. An additional part of the reality is the words which you actually spoke, and the potential for misunderstanding which you might have created by speaking them.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 amBut that's also my responsibility. I have no duty to keep "my side of the street" clear of what a person on the other side of the street takes objection to.
That's not what "sweeping your side of the street" means. Rather, it means acknowledging the kernel of truth in what the PERSON SPOKEN TO has said (e.g., acknowledge the truth you may have spoke words which could be misunderstood, acknowledge the truth that your words may have created an uncomfortable situation, etc.). It also means making amends (e.g., stating an intention to try to be more clear in the future). Very practically speaking, until you have done this, you may find that mis-communications will spin out of control, as they did in the locked thread.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:56 amThey might be an ingenuous suffering individual who I have inadvertently offended through ignorance. But they might also be an egotistic manipulator with a nice line in offended innocence. Or a snowflake who needs to take more responsibility for how they perceive things. Or anything, really. That's why it's my responsibility, not the responsibility of others.
Yes, we might call people names like this in our thoughts. We might think the other person is a "manipulator" or a "snowflake." You may think these things about me. And yes, each of us is responsible for our own reactions. My suggestion in this Topic is that it is more effective to avoid personalized comments in the first place. My suggestion in response to your comments is that having made a potentially personalized comment which may have offended, one's First Words should be compassionate, not hostile.
You and others have so many excellent ideas to share, I hate to see you shoot yourself in the foot by using personalized comments which get in the way of the point you are trying to make.