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