OP: *Expresses frustration; elides some details*
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
People on here go on and on and on about consent. In a notably pompous way, and lacking much self-awareness, I might add. Posting anything with any kind of realness on the Internet is always a choice to make yourself vulnerable. But even more so, here. Mastodon's affordances place all the initiative with the reply guy. A self-aware model of consent would demand that replies be cooperative. But instead, so many people here are oppositional by default. You punish that vulnerability.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
Those affordances are going to change. But it's changing at the speed of informal standards making, which makes software development look lightning quick by comparison. It's not fast enough. Things can't get worse until they get better. They have to just get better. And the only way that happens is if you fucking. Stop. Approaching every interaction in an oppositional manner.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
We need places to connect outside the control of autocrats and billionaires. If this is to be such a place, it has to be welcoming. And if it's not to be, then what the fuck are we doing here?
-
Sebastian Lauwersreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus I wonder why this tends to happen so much. Is it an audience, a reach, or an algorithmic reason?
In other words: is the because Mastodon attracted a particular kind of individual, because we’re able to innocently stumble upon entire communities by adding a hashtag to our post, or because the other platforms isolated everyone in a way that this behaviour was never noticed?
-
Unfortunately yes and no? Gyah, I don’t want to be a douche about it, and I do know these shitty interactions and hate them too.
But *also*, I get this exasperation misattributed to me or other autistic people when we’re just sharing information.
(Autistic social convention: this is polite because learning is fun and increases safety for all.)(Maybe this is fine?
Not “you’re wrong because of at least one exception” but “I feel you and also here is a complicating factor sometimes”?) -
@jenniferplusplus @UlrikeHahn to my mind, the fundamental challenge of online social media lies in the fact that disagreement *feels* like an attack, even where well-meaning, and that effect is magnified by volume: even the most mild disagreement feels bad when you get a lot of it, all at once.
I’m sceptical that there’s a technical solution to this (at least one that would still foster dialogue), so the answer seems social and cultural to me- a culture we all continuously have to work on
-
Sable Shade 🇦🇺 ☮️4️⃣🇺🇦🇵🇸replied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus
>elides
I had never.
Thank you for that! -
I am also autistic, but I very, very rarely get this.
Not from social skill or masking being different or because I use certain formulas (e.g., "as I know you are saying" to ensure it is known I am trying to narrow a point, not argue), but because I very, very rarely argue—and it is arguing—with people who I neither know nor am engaged in a conversation with in some other way.
Even to the degree it is "not arguing I am just sharing" I don't _contradict_.
-
Hrefna (DHC)replied to Sable Shade 🇦🇺 ☮️4️⃣🇺🇦🇵🇸 last edited by
-
Huh. How?? Please share your secrets?! (If you feel comfortable doing so.)
I know people react as if I shit in their living room with how abrasive I apparently am (and I sometimes play into it for humor tbf, but definitely not more than like 30% of the time).
I could be the most logical, non-confrontational, amenable, cooperative, consensus-seeking MF’r and I will get practical strangers shouting at me (altho thankfully, this is rarer now — but I also just don’t leave the house much, which is its own problem).
I’m happy for you, genuinely, but it does feel like allistic people are impossible to please and not worth trying.
-
tbh it isn't really a matter of trying to please allistics. I can do that too—I have decades of training in it, as it were (even if I am rusty), and that is a _skill_—but this is categorically different.
Your mileage may vary, but: A lot of it for me is simply choosing to not engage and being aware of whose space I am in.
When I reply to someone on their timeline I am in their space.
Presently we are in @jenniferplusplus's space as well as our own. So her rules are governing.
1/
-
@jenniferplusplus started this thread and we are both still replying to her.
Now I have (what I think is) a good rapport with her. We don't always agree, but we have a fair bit of history and have been mutuals for a long time.
You and I have also been interacting with a long time and have (again what I believe to be) a good rapport.
So I can be a little more casual. My (bayesian) analysis is informed by history and context with you both, and I have a feel for the lines.
2/
-
Hrefna (DHC)replied to Hrefna (DHC) last edited by [email protected]
Some things can vary a space. Two of us are on hachyderm, you are on lgbtqia, other visitors will be on other spaces. Hashtags also can change the dynamics.
But what I don't do is show up in randos spaces all that often to make sure they Really Understand
a point that I could make on my own timeline. I also try _very_ hard to make it clear what my intent is in a given space.Especially if we don't have history so that they know I am not arguing.
3/
-
IME that clarity of _intent_ is important.
"I know you know this"
"I agree and"
etc.
But also just: why are you there? What is your goal in the interaction?
Are you trying to build rapport? Are you trying to change their mind? Are you looking to hear yourself speak?
I personally find that knowing why _I_ am there in the first place is critical for shaping how others perceive that question, but a lot of people do not seem to know why they are engaging.
4/4
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
Still on vacation and my phone is still broken. I may or may not read the replies later
-
@UlrikeHahn it's actually uncommon that disagreement is welcome, regardless of whether it's an attack. A very significant proportion of posts are to express an emotion, or to relate an experience. Those aren't things you can disagree with.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Sebastian Lauwers last edited by
@teotwaki there's a lot of reasons, but the one that e can do something about is the way mastodon is designed to create this outcome. It flattens everything and obscures most context, makes it hard to read and easy to write, and gives the OP no ability to discourage unwelcome behavior.
-
@jenniferplusplus I agree that disagreement is unwelcome, but the problem I see is that the possibility of disagreement is part of the notion of ‘discussion’. So if discussion is valued then disagreement basically follows. I think discussion is one of the reasons people come here, no?
-
@UlrikeHahn @jenniferplusplus I an old, and have been on the Internet a long time. I have learned two things (of relevance). 1: Unsolicited advice is criticism. 2: If I'm contributing to a thread because I think "someone is wrong on the internet" rather than trying to achieve something good and positive and mutually beneficial, I should Just Not.
