From: dalec@socrates.berkeley.edu
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 11:26:53 MDT
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > be conservative in what you send and be liberal in
> > what you accept. That is, try not to take offense, but try not to give
> > offense either.
>
> That's exactly what I try to do in practice, and for the same
> reason. Where I may occaisionally rant is that sometimes the
> receivers are so hopelessly fragile that they stifle communication
> altogether. Sure, I try not to give offense; but when someone is
> offended by the simple honest content of the message, what can be
> done?
Isn't your assessment of your audience *part* of the "simple honest
content" of any message that circulates in public? If you indicate
disrespect for the sensibilities and concerns of the person you are
communicating with why shouldn't you expect them to be offended? And why
would you want to invite the inevitable infelicities of communication that
happen when people start getting defensive?
> I would phrase it "politeness /evolved/ for good reasons", with which
> I agree. So did pain. That doesn't mean we can't transcend both.
Even in the fabulous technofuture there will be a plurality of agents
contending for relatively finite resources. Here's hoping that
politeness, however imperfect and frustrating a tool it seems to be,
remains in force -- without it it seems we will never transcend *social*
pains like humiliation and hostility.
Best, Dale
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST