I may be an optimist but I believe the tenor of online debate could be vastly improved if more people were capable of distinguishing “this is what I believe reality to be” from “I heartily endorse this”
For awhile I worked as a trainer teaching paralegals about eLitigation, and particularly electronic discovery processes.
It was amazing to me how many people just cannot differentiate between, "This way works for me" and "my way is the best way to do it, and everyone else should do it this way too."
People need to be better at communicating which kind of statement they’re making. It can’t all rely on my comprehension. (I live with someone who uses the same tone for both, and so we have had many avoidable arguments.)
People really, really like accusing me of supporting the legal status quo when I explain what the law is.
Like e hoa I am an anarchist I promise you when I start heartily endorsing things you will hear the sirens
I feel like plenty of solid posts were never posted, because—in writing them—the poster realized all of the potential bad faith interpretations (even by those who'd actually agree with them), tried to add more detail to counter that, ran into the character limit, said "Fuck it" and clicked Discard.
This is so much more acute in foreign policy and I hate it because I'm stuck between making vague proclamations about a hypothetical social order I'll never live to see for what I want or just trying to describe how the basic international order works and states practice FP and get misconstrued.
I am not an optimist, but most of the bad discourse I see here stems from some variation of: "this is what this person did [receipts]" followed by:
"This person is a [combination of marginalisation] and now you want to sacrifice [pronoun] for no good reason! [Pronoun] did a lot of good for us!"
Yep. Like, I understand that policy, especially foreign policy, only care about power. I accept that fact as reality. Doesn't mean I don't want it to change.
That's the take I always had on fredrick niechzte
I never got that he was saying the powerful owe nothing to the weak was a good thing just that he found it to be the case
I'd figure people who proclaim activism and social justice to be core parts of their identity would know that "what is" and "what ought to be" are very rarely the same, but The Discourse regularly convinces me that this is not the case.
you are probably very correct