When you speculate too much on complicated movement dynamics, it’s easy to overlook things like this via motivated reasoning.
Thanks for affirming the first point. But lurkers on a forum thread don’t feel respected or disrespected. They just observe and judge. And you want them to respect us, first and foremost.
I appreciate that you thanked Telofy; that was respectful of you. I’ve said a lot about how using kind communication norms is both agreeable and useful in general, but the same principles apply to our conversation.
I notice that, in the first passage I’ve quoted, it’s socially (but not logically) implied that Telofy has “speculated”, “overlooked things”, and used “motivated reasoning”. The second passage I’ve quoted states that certain people who “don’t feel respected or disrespected” should “respect us, first and foremost”, which socially (but not logically) implies that they are both less capable of having feelings in reaction to being (dis)respected, and less deserving of respect, than we are.
These examples are part of a trend in your writing.
which socially (but not logically) implies that they are both less capable of having feelings in reaction to being (dis)respected, and less deserving of respect, than we are.
I’ve noticed that strawmanning and poor interpretations of my writing is a trend in your writing. Cut it out.
I did not state that lurkers should respect us at the expense of us disrespecting them. I stated quite clearly that lurkers feel nothing of the sort, since they are observers. This has nothing to do with who they are, and everything to do with the fact that they are passively reading the conversation rather than being a subject of it. Rather, I argued that lurkers should be led to respect us instead of being unimpressed by us, and that they would be unimpressed by us if they saw that the standard reaction to somebody criticizing and leaving the movement was to leave their complaints unassailed and to affirm that such people don’t fit in the movement.
I appreciate that you thanked Telofy; that was respectful of you. I’ve said a lot about how using kind communication norms is both agreeable and useful in general, but the same principles apply to our conversation.
I notice that, in the first passage I’ve quoted, it’s socially (but not logically) implied that Telofy has “speculated”, “overlooked things”, and used “motivated reasoning”. The second passage I’ve quoted states that certain people who “don’t feel respected or disrespected” should “respect us, first and foremost”, which socially (but not logically) implies that they are both less capable of having feelings in reaction to being (dis)respected, and less deserving of respect, than we are.
These examples are part of a trend in your writing.
Cut it out.
Thank you. <3
I’ve noticed that strawmanning and poor interpretations of my writing is a trend in your writing. Cut it out.
I did not state that lurkers should respect us at the expense of us disrespecting them. I stated quite clearly that lurkers feel nothing of the sort, since they are observers. This has nothing to do with who they are, and everything to do with the fact that they are passively reading the conversation rather than being a subject of it. Rather, I argued that lurkers should be led to respect us instead of being unimpressed by us, and that they would be unimpressed by us if they saw that the standard reaction to somebody criticizing and leaving the movement was to leave their complaints unassailed and to affirm that such people don’t fit in the movement.