Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2016-06-14 05:58 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2016-06-14 05:58 pm
[ SECRET POST #3450 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3450 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
[Cracked After Hours]
__________________________________________________
03.
[Disney's Sword in the Stone]
__________________________________________________
04.
[Pokémon Sun and Moon]
__________________________________________________
05.
(Charlie Hunnam)
__________________________________________________
06.
[Jodie Foster]
__________________________________________________
07.
[New Blood]
__________________________________________________
08.
[DC Rebirth]
__________________________________________________
09.
[Jane the virgin / Juana la virgen]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 29 secrets from Secret Submission Post #493.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
There's no reason to interpret things in the worst possible way, attributing malice where there is none.
no subject
no subject
Different advice for different situations.
But your first post was kind of mean sounding.
You can take it that way if you want to. Lots of people don't have friends, and I've seen a few secrets specifically about not having any. I don't know what's inherently mean about "Do you not have friends?"
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2016-06-15 01:39 am (UTC)(link)So in other words, it was mean sounding because it sounded like something someone would say if they were trying to be mean.
SA
(Anonymous) 2016-06-15 01:41 am (UTC)(link)Re: SA
(Anonymous) 2016-06-15 03:31 am (UTC)(link)Re: SA
Re: SA
(Anonymous) 2016-06-15 08:11 am (UTC)(link)The fact that you're oblivious to your tone and arrogant enough to think anyone who thinks you come off hostile or condescending is just misreading you doesn't actually make you come off as something other than hostile, condescending, and kind of a dick.
Re: SA
The fact that you're oblivious to your tone [...] condescending
I dunno how you reached that conclusion, given that I've owned up to and apologized for wording things in a condescending manner in the past.
kind of a dick
Perhaps we disagree on what makes someone a dick. I think so long as someone's intentions are good, they're not a dick. And my intentions are as pure as the driven snow.
no subject
no subject
How do people know there's no malice? Humans can't read minds. We have to go by what we see and our experiences. Generally when someone says something like "what, you don't have any friends?" they're being a dick.
no subject
No, but I get to be the judge of whether they're misreading my intent or not. Who else could be? Could you? You're not me, you (afaik) have no way of knowing for sure what my thoughts and intentions are. I do.
So why would you be better at deciding whether someone misread my intent or not? Would you like to explain that?
How do people know there's no malice? Humans can't read minds.
This was my entire point? How do you not connect that with my statement of "Only I can know my intent and judge whether someone has misread it or not"?
no subject
Words have an impact on people that is sometimes different from what you intended and it's up to you to own up to the stuff you've said. You can apologize and explain you didn't mean it that way, but getting super defensive and saying "but I didn't mean that, why did you have to read it that way?" is dismissive of the person whose feelings you may have hurt, and is evasive of all responsibility you should be taking for communicating more clearly to avoid misunderstandings.
Generally saying something like "what, so you have no friends?" is done with bad intent (which I already explained) and is therefore hurtful. Nobody has to jump through a bunch of hoops to say "well, it's Blitzwing, so even though they're often kind of a jerk, and they're saying something that bullies and assholes say in a very flippant manner, I should just assume they mean that in the best way possible and not be hurt at all". YOU are responsible for what you say.
no subject
is dismissive of the person whose feelings you may have hurt
No one has came forward claiming to be the OP (the person my words were directed at).
Generally saying something like "what, so you have no friends?" is done with bad intent (which I already explained) and is therefore hurtful.
Sure, and I've already explained the specific factors in this case (generally applying to generally, not to every set of circumstances) that I think would make it illogical to assume I was saying that with cruel/mocking intent.
Nobody has to jump through a bunch of hoops to say
But you claimed that people should "you know, use all the context clues they have and draw the likeliest conclusion?"
Should people examine the context clues ("Jump through hoops" as you say) or not? Which is it?
no subject
Yeah, and it can help to know what intent is especially if there's a misunderstanding - but it's not always evident what it is, and it means fuckall anyway if you say something hurtful and then act like people don't have the right to be upset.
No one has came forward claiming to be the OP (the person my words were directed at)
This isn't really about OP anymore; several other people took offense at your statement.
Sure, and I've already explained the specific factors in this case (generally applying to generally, not to every set of circumstances) that I think would make it illogical to assume I was saying that with cruel/mocking intent.
And I disagree that it's illogical. I've already explained why. The numbers are also not in your favor here.
Should people examine the context clues ("Jump through hoops" as you say)
Those are not the same thing and I don't know why you are conflating them. Examining the context clues and coming to the likeliest conclusion has led several people to react to your first comment as though it were malicious because that's what it looked like. It's another thing entirely to extrapolate beyond the information given, using information that the readers of your comment do not have, and come up with the conclusion you seem to think people should have done even though you are the only person who thinks that's the logical assumption.
no subject
I'm actually really curious how you got to that conclusion from "
There's no reason to interpret things in the worst possible way, attributing malice where there is none".
Is that a statement you disagree with? Are you saying it's *wrong* to advise against assuming the worst intent possible all the time?
no subject
no subject
Cuts down on anger, hurt, and confusion over misunderstandings.
Why shouldn't people, you know, use all the context clues they have and draw the likeliest conclusion?
That's fine too. But that doesn't explain why *you* think I am trying to control how other people interpret my statements. I'm still waiting on your explanation for that.
no subject
Misunderstandings can go either way though. People will tend to go with the likeliest interpretation, not necessarily the rosiest.
But that doesn't explain why *you* think I am trying to control how other people interpret my statements.
Because when a bunch of people interpreted it as malicious, you got really defensive in saying that they shouldn't have done that because reasons, instead of just apologizing. I thought that was fairly clear.