I've talked with people who argue that they should be allowed to have the sort of conversations that might offend people because if someone is offended, they don't have to be part of it. It's a seductive idea, but it won't

Why? Because there's a ratcheting effect. If you could measure rudeness, a chat might start at 1. People who don't care for that level will leave. So now the chat can start moving toward rudeness level 2 with fewer people to object or moderate.
Where is the limit? Well it will trend toward the comfort level of the most committed members. If part of the "value" of a chat is that it's "honest" (read "rude"), people who don't value that will leave. Problem solved? No! The next level will offend another set of people.
This is what make me so uncomfortable about the ignore feature. It gives people the idea that the way to handle rude behavior is to look away. On an individual level, that's not a bad technique. Why put yourself though frustration if you don't need to?

https://t.co/udHgABiBfp
But for a group, it's a disaster. It just creates a situation where many people feel powerless, unheard and left out. At some point someone speaks up and discovers it wasn't just them. Now everyone is in for a world of hurt and misunderstanding.
In my experience, the people who understand this dynamic the least are the people who love to push the boundaries of behavior. I struggle with communicating to them because they don't see the problem. In fact, they assume the villains are the people who complain.
Feels like yet another example of FAE. Other people are snowflakes who can't handle frank discussion. But watch what happens when the conversation turns to topics that make the formerly "tough" people feel uncomfortable. Changes the dynamics.

https://t.co/dTuTxwmoCK
Pretty easy to see this in politically active people on Twitter. Whether or not something is rude depends on who the target is. It's super unhealthy. It's why I'm uncomfortable with Biden calling Trump our worst president even though I agree.

https://t.co/cXd1DRvOxi
Whether we like it or not, there's a little Colonel Jessup in us all. Being right doesn't mean we can ignore people who disagree with us. The truth doesn't need people to behave badly for its sake.

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like