Social Media, Anger and Us

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Nicola Cole — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 20:15:20 GMT

For some reason it’s stopped letting me quote!
From Clare Tapsfield-Wrightpost which said:

‘I do think there is some neurodiversity on this list which needs some accommodation and tolerance but that’s not to say courtesy cannot still be learned.’

I agree that in the majority of cases courtesy can be learned. However, Arlo Guthrie Arlo (in my opinion!) is setting the bar quite low in terms of what is classed as a bar-able offence. The subtleties of language and how things come across and how things are interpreted is the difficult part-that’s what I’m trying to get across. That if the bar is set that low then it’s easy for people to fall foul of it without meaning to, because occasionally with the best will in the world that is going to happen. And that has nothing to do with being courteous per se, it’s to do with interpretation.

I think the forum works very nicely as it is. I think there are a couple of very obvious things that happen, repeatedly(!), but otherwise people are generally courteous and it bumbles along. Obviously it’s Arlo’s forum and he can put whatever rules in place that he thinks are appropriate.

As an aside-there is a highly sarcastic remark that has appeared on another discussion thread-problem or not?!

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 17:43:39 GMT

I sometimes wince a bit when I see an acerbic post but overall I like the fact that it’s is not sanitised and strong debate can take place. I’ve also see other regular members call out other contributors and protect new contributors which I think is a good thing.
As my Dad told me “ when you’re the only one marching out of step maybe you need to look to your own feet and not blame others” .
I do think there is some neurodiversity on this list which needs some accommodation and tolerance but that’s not to say courtesy cannot still be learned. My sons technique is to say “ no offence “ before sometimes saying something quite rude. We are still working on that.
All in all Arlo , it’s your list, it’s a great community and I support you whatever you decide to do.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Bob Russell — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 15:17:46 GMT

You have 26 years of experience therefore no need to feel small or stupid. However experienced we will hit cases outside our knowledge so the only stupid ones are those that don't try to learn.

Shakespeare wrote something about hollow vessels making the most noise and he was far from wrong.

That said, it is not a crime to be wrong! Not to learn is generally a sign things are not not good.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Julie Innes — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 13:45:46 GMT

I appreciate the sentiment of this thread, Arlo, but not sure how you stop people on forums accidentally upsetting others on forums!

I've been a vet 26 years, and still hesitate to post on here or other sites, as I can easily be made to feel small or stupid. Nothing to do with taking offence, but more doubting my own opinion in the face of arrogance and judgement. Now obviously most people on her (and other sites) are not like that, but there will always be one or two.

I'm not sure if this is a purely "vet" thing- I'm guessing it exists in all walks of life. But it's something I noticed at vet school, and more recently CPD- I would often tentatively think I knew the answer to something, someone else would loudly and confidently declare the answer to be something else entirely, and I would assume I was wrong, and be thankful I hadn't spoken up.....only 9 times out of 10 I was right and they were wrong!

For some of us it's hard to oppose those who are absolutely loudly confident that they are completely right, especially when not overly confident ourselves! But having said that, I am still interested in watching the threads, even if I don't always comment, so would never want to see anyone barred, unless they were genuinely being unpleasant. I am aware that my hang ups are MY issue, and I don't expect everyone to tiptoe around them!

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Nicola Cole — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 13:27:28 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234675#234675"]Or should they be excluded on the basis that they don't have the required skills to engage online, in the same way that a blind person is excluded from driving?[/quote]

Until more technology exists (unless it does and I’m unaware), a blind person driving is dangerous as they cannot see the road nor hazards.

That is completely different to someone engaging in something that someone/society has created the rules for, if they are unsure as to what the rules are (and by that I don’t mean being given a list of rules!)

I’m not saying that someone who is neurodiverse ‘cannot express themselves without offending others’. Many can, some potentially can’t. But that’s more to do with societies rules as opposed to the individual. Have you ever read the theory of Double Empathy? The idea being that it’s not just some autistic people that can struggle with communication, that part of the ‘problem’ is that neurotypical people struggle to read autistics as well.

So if you have two sets of people who are trying to follow the rules of a forum regarding kindness and not being offensive, but one person doesn’t see something as offensive and one does-this may well just be a mismatch between understanding each other. And you may say that if you read your posts and think before you post then you can see if something is offensive-but for some people if what they’ve put isn’t offensive to them then it doesn’t become any more offensive by re-reading it. Who is to say who is in the right and who gets banned? Probably the person in the minority gets banned….

As I said, I’m not arguing here about people that repeatedly try and get a rise from others. And I’m not saying people have the right to offend. And I know I’ve take this discussion on a slight tangent.

My point is that in making sweeping statements along the lines of everyone knows the rules-well those rules are subjective, as are the rules in society in general. Being told repeatedly that the way you think isn’t acceptable isn’t exactly good for people’s mental health either (that’s in relation to the comment about mental health/suicide rates in the profession and trying to make this a safe space).

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:33:50 GMT

[quote userid="3185" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234673#234673"]By clever use of language it is possible to individually bully and belittle someone without others even realising. I suppose what I am asking here is what is the difference between between a comment offending someone, and a comment being offensive? [/quote]

You make a good point, and I guess as this is a moderated forum, the final say as to which it is comes down to one person. What Arlo finds offensive will not necessarily be what someone else does. However, in my experience, it is pretty obvious in the vast majority of cases that the writer is setting out to upset. In the small number of cases where there may be a poor use of words, or a misunderstanding, or sometimes just ignorance, I do think somebody, whether the recipient of the comment or not, would just query it and resolve the issue quickly. Where there is an 'offender', it tends to be obvious fairly quickly that they don't care about any offence caused and will continue in the same vein.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Louise Buckley — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:26:58 GMT

[quote userid="11493" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234678#234678"]

Louise Buckley said:
Vet Surgeonites

I am unsure if this term has been used before, but I absolutely love it.

[/quote]

Aw, thanks! Sounds better than the Guthrie-Groupies

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:25:33 GMT

[quote userid="3185" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234676#234676"]Vet Surgeonites[/quote]

I am unsure if this term has been used before, but I absolutely love it.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Bob Russell — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:22:48 GMT

There is a real risk that we are heading into the situation where there is a solution looking for a problem.

Everybody has a different way of expressing themselves and this may come over as being a bit rude. So what? If people are rude to me then I question are they trying to be rude? Provocative? Personal?

I clearly have missed many of these moments or brushed them off as inconsequential.

Nobody on here is nasty. A few are brusque at times and patience gets a bit strained at times. Sound familiar? I get this every time I go home and face my family.

Does this mean we have just become a slightly dysfunctional family over the years??

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Louise Buckley — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:19:22 GMT

[quote userid="3685" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234671#234671"]Don’t get me wrong-there are people that may be well be after a rise or want to offend. But what you’re doing is tarring everybody with the same brush, especially those that do have social and communication challenges. Dare I say that you are making it less inclusive and less of a safe place for them. It becomes a place where their challenges are misunderstood and they are deemed ‘rude’ or as having ‘bad manners’ because something they’ve said has been taken in a way that they were completely unaware it could even have been taken in.[/quote]

This is the point that I was trying to make much earlier in the discussion but it is made better by Nicola. And again, comes back to that conumdrum in my own head about the turning on a light switch and killing a man by doing so - is that murder? I have joined a few groups for neurodiverse people having read around the condition to improve my ability to work with my students and, in doing so, recognising myself to a tee and my own challenges over the years so I am pretty sure I am 'neurodiverse'.

This is the problem though - if we exclude people that communicate using anything other than the most optimally socially savvy expressions then we homogenous a population of Vet Surgeonites across dimensions probably not expected. A bit like breeding foxes for tameness led to the coat colour and other phylogenetic trait changes of that captive population. So we rigorously exclude those that make a social faux pas (as defined by a given individual/collective of individuals), we might inadvertently exclude people who disproportionately have certain mental health conditions, or who are neurodiverse, or who are just exhausted, stressed out, worn out, etc as we know from the scientific literature that being so impairs judgement, even on a task relevant to reducing or removing the stressor (e.g. social support to talk through a challenging day makes the challenges of veterinary more manageable). It comes back to that saying 'be careful what you wish for'.

It might also potentially be something challengeable legally as indirect discrimination I think as you are setting a bar that might unreasonably make it more difficult for people e.g. with autism to reach. Particularly if marketed as a social support network for vets as it might morph into a private strapline of 'a social support network for neurotypical vets'. I would also suggest dyslexia as one of the signs of dyslexia that I see commonly in my role as an academic marking assignments is that it can be more challenging for dyslexics to frame a cogent structured argument in the written word - even though talk to the same person and ask them to verbally articulate it and you will get a very difficult picture. Awkwardness in putting across a written argument could lead to misinterpretations too.

I noticed that earlier on someone put forward an argument that there are lots of vets with high functioning autism that can learn to modify expression/communicate well - I think this is true but with a big but. The but is that these individuals are humans just the same as everyone else and therefore subject to the same additional stressors (e.g. tiredness, overwork, etc) that also impair judgement, except that more mental energy is already being used up processing information to cope with 'stressors' that might be less of a stressor to a neurotypical person. That gives less mental energy available to cope elsewhere (e.g. with overwork, etc) , and, I would expect given the concept of trigger stacking, result in increased risk of threshold for copability being exceeded. This would be a kin to the stress becoming destress theory, and then suboptimal responses (i.e. scientific literature reference above) occuring (like less than optimal phrasing during posts on vet surgeon) - but this less than optimal phrasing could well be a subtle but important marker of that person's additional need for a caring and supportive environment.

[quote userid="3685" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234671#234671"]I recently left a Facebook group (shock horror) that, for all their chat about inclusivity, when it came to it just didn’t ‘get it’-even when I pointed out the problems to admin.[/quote]

Do I get a prize for guessing which group that was?!

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:53:59 GMT

[quote userid="3685" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234671#234671"]Nothing in here is meant to be offensive[/quote]

Nothing is remotely offensive! Apart from anything else, the likelihood of me being offended by a post which begins:

[quote userid="3685" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234671#234671"]I think you are fantastic[/quote]

... is vanishingly small.

I think you are too, btw.

Coming to your point ... whether requiring good manners and for people to communicate unambiguously is exclusive to neurodiverse people.

My experience of moderating is that the problems almost without exception seem to come when people ARE trying to get a rise, or that they don't understand or don't agree that social media demands a different etiquette.

I don't believe it is an issue which neurodiversity has thus far played any significant part.

There are only a handful of people I can think of who have posted stuff which has offended, and I don't believe that neurodiversity was a factor (though of course I cannot know for sure).

[quote userid="3685" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234671#234671"](and video wouldn’t help as those gestural cues, facial expressions are often missed as well eg. if someone is smiling when they say something then they could be being happy and welcoming or they could be being patronising and sarcastic!)[/quote]

I disagree about that. I think facial expressions are rarely missed.

Either way, I think the job of a moderator is partly to ascertain whether neurodiversity might be an issue. Whether the post was intentionally or unintentionally offensive.

I think video will be an incredibly helpful tool in that regard.

But I wonder what you think the solution is if someone, because of their neurodiversity, is unable to express themselves without offending others.

Would you argue they must be included?

Or should they be excluded on the basis that they don't have the required skills to engage online, in the same way that a blind person is excluded from driving?

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Louise Buckley — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:50:31 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234670#234670"]

Louise Buckley said:
One of those examples in brackets (Quadrasexual https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Quadrasexual)

Oh my good god ... who knew?!

[/quote]

Ps. Not me until I googled!!!! Somethings you can never unlearn either!

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Louise Buckley — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:49:45 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234670#234670"]

Louise Buckley said:
For me, that would be an example though of flippant offensiveness.

But that is precisely what I would NOT moderate for.

I'm not trying to protect you from being offended, but from people being offensive to you personally. There is a world of difference.

[/quote]

But that is a grey area here, I think. By clever use of language it is possible to individually bully and belittle someone without others even realising. I suppose what I am asking here is what is the difference between between a comment offending someone, and a comment being offensive? Are they two sides of the same coin? Or, is it possible for a comment to be offensive if no one takes offense? Or, a comment to not being offensive if people take offense? This is such a difficult one for me to get my head around if there is a diference, but one that I think sits behind the difference of opinion between those that are strongly supportive and those that are strongly critical of the BVA campaign. I *want* to think there is a difference because it *feels* wrong to say that someone has 'behaved badly' if there was no 'intent' to do so (parallel: if I turn on a light switch and kill a man in the adjacent room because, unbeknown to me, he was was working on the electrics in there without the supply isolated, then am I a murderer? Is it death by misadventure? Or, turning on a light without due care and attention? Or what?).

I DO NOT think that is what was happening in the post I am commenting on, but having been on the receiving end of extensive gaslighting until it destroyed my job and mental health - with no one in the workplace believing me - I am acutely aware of how subtle it can be. It took about 10 years and untold other victims, including my manager who had told me it was in my head but later confessed to a colleague (who fed it back to me) that she wished she could turn the clock back and have listened to what I was saying, before the person was recognised for what they were. They had left a trail of similar behaviour in previous workplaces too. Where I am going with this is that language is not always overtly used to signify belittling and to 'shut down another' but some of the most damaging words may appear the most minor. However, I suspect that is very difficult to effectively manage in this context as wider context and understanding is often needed to know what is being brought to the table and why!

However, I am also acutely aware that the 'bull in the china shop' phrase could have been written for me and will probably be etched on my grave stone.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Nicola Cole — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:27:04 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234666#234666"]

But yes is the answer to your question.

I think the time has come to require unambiguous language. Either that post is designed to cause offence or it is inconsiderate. There's no need for either because the point could easily have been made differently, without detracting from the point.

[/quote]

Arlo, I think you are fantastic, but I also think that you are missing something here.

Im not talking specifically about David’s post. I’m talking about the whole discussion.

You’ve repeatedly said that you want to take out the bad manners and the rudeness. But as demonstrated above, that is subjective. You’ve repeatedly said that people have control over what they write and the way they choose to come across. I’m sorry, but that isn’t always the case. Lots of people struggle with how they come across in writing. A much smaller percentage are completely unaware that what they’ve written could be taken the ‘wrong way’.

Don’t get me wrong-there are people that may be well be after a rise or want to offend. But what you’re doing is tarring everybody with the same brush, especially those that do have social and communication challenges. Dare I say that you are making it less inclusive and less of a safe place for them. It becomes a place where their challenges are misunderstood and they are deemed ‘rude’ or as having ‘bad manners’ because something they’ve said has been taken in a way that they were completely unaware it could even have been taken in.

I recently left a Facebook group (shock horror) that, for all their chat about inclusivity, when it came to it just didn’t ‘get it’-even when I pointed out the problems to admin.

As I say, I’m not talking about those who may be after a rise from someone. I’m talking about people who genuinely cannot see that a statement would be taken in a different way to that which they meant it. I’m not suggesting that people should beable to have a slanging match, but determining the tone of a reply can be very difficult (and video wouldn’t help as those gestural cues, facial expressions are often missed as well eg. if someone is smiling when they say something then they could be being happy and welcoming or they could be being patronising and sarcastic!)

There is obviously a fine line, but what you’re doing, in my opinion, is censoring neurodiverse people’s ability to be ‘themselves’. You may think ‘where is all this coming from?’, but there have been a number of comments running through this thread, which you may not realise have an effect, but they do.

You may reply to this with a ‘yes, that’s why people have to be unambiguous’ (as above), but you’re not understanding that some people can’t be unambiguous by their very nature, and it’s not for want of trying!

I’ve tried to say all that without being offensive and using words that you can’t take in an offensive way. But suggesting that everyone can just ‘moderate their own behaviour because that’s what they have to do’ is just wrong. Some people can’t manage it offline so how are they meant to manage it online? So let’s just exclude them? Or let’s make them read through their replies twenty times, delete it, re-write etc before they post. And then they still risk being banned because they didn’t manage to think about everything?!

You may say if they get banned for a period of time then it’s just a ban, so what? It’s not. It’s another kick in the teeth from a society that does not ‘get it’ and refuses to adapt to be inclusive.

I’ve re-read this post enough times now so am going to post it. Nothing in here is meant to be offensive, but I’m hoping that it makes you look at things slightly differently.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:26:00 GMT

[quote userid="3185" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234669#234669"]One of those examples in brackets (Quadrasexual https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Quadrasexual) [/quote]

Oh my good god ... who knew?!

[quote userid="3185" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234669#234669"]For me, that would be an example though of flippant offensiveness.[/quote]

But that is precisely what I would NOT moderate for.

I'm not trying to protect you from being offended, but from people being offensive to you personally. There is a world of difference.

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234668#234668"]I am not going to start altering the way I write posts though based on whether readers are male or female (Or lesbian, gay, transexual, asexual, bisexual, quadrasexual, gender neutral, whatever else they maybe) [/quote]

I'm not sure you really need to alter your posts in the first place! But if you did, it would be enough to alter them to be appropriate for the Internet, without being more specific.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Louise Buckley — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:08:20 GMT

For me, that would be an example though of flippant offensiveness. One of those examples in brackets (Quadrasexual https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Quadrasexual) involves illegal sexual acts and potential animal cruelty and would be widely considered a perversion, which is something that the LBGT community have had to fight hard for many many years to overcome as a label but in that one statement and use of language they may well feel heaped back into that category.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Clive Ansell — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:54:29 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234664#234664"]

Clive Ansell said:
The sex, or gender, of the forum participants is not relevant and should not make any difference in this so called gender neutral age.

I know one is not allowed to think that gender makes a difference, but I do!

[/quote]

Maybe, I don't know?

I am not going to start altering the way I write posts though based on whether readers are male or female (Or lesbian, gay, transexual, asexual, bisexual, quadrasexual, gender neutral, whatever else they maybe)

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:37:21 GMT

[quote userid="3685" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234665#234665"]So would that confer a ban under the new rules?[/quote]

They aren't new rules, I was just throwing in the idea of having a bigger deterrent. I didn't mean it to be read too literally.

But yes is the answer to your question.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Nicola Cole — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:29:54 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234664#234664"]Either David was calling Daniella stupid and naive, OR his poor use of language made it likely people would read that into it. [/quote]

So would that confer a ban under the new rules?

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 09:25:37 GMT

Clive Ansell Sorry, missed your post earlier

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234604#234604"]The sex, or gender, of the forum participants is not relevant and should not make any difference in this so called gender neutral age. [/quote]

I know one is not allowed to think that gender makes a difference, but I do!

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234604#234604"]I still stand by my original comment, that there is sometimes a confusion between straight talking and rudeness and arrogance. They are different, and it is perfectly possible to be blunt and straight to the point while at the same time not being rude or offensive at all. Sometimes I think is used as just a convenient arguement. [/quote]

I think far, far less often than 'straight-talkers' would like to claim.

As I say, in all my years moderating, it has overwhelmingly been the case that when people take offence at the written word, it was because it was offensive, not because they were trying to shut down a discussion.

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234625#234625"]Why don't you do it the background, for say a month, but don't actually ban or strike anyone off. At the end tell us who you would have banned and why? [/quote]

Was thinking about this and thinking it wouldn't work because I want to have a push for new members based on this place offering a haven, so to speak, which I can't very well do if I'm still having to intervene!

But thinking some more, why not. Except I wont wait till the end of the month. I'll leap in and call it out when I see it.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234646#234646"]To be fair, I read through the sentence a couple of times as it initially seemed harsh .. but I also decided the criticism was of the people making the microaggressive comments, not of the people who made the poster.[/quote]

Gillian Mostyn David wrote:

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234624#234624"]

David Mills said:

The examples given on those poster are likely borne out of naivety, stupidity, or some mix of the two.

[/quote]

My reading was that the person or people who selected the examples are stupid or naive, not that the examples themselves (which were not shared) were stupid or naive.

But even if the latter, would it not make the author of the poster stupid or naive for picking examples borne of stupidity or naivety?

And finally, whichever way you argue it, does it not perfectly illustrate the problem I am trying to highlight.

Either David was calling Daniella stupid and naive, OR his poor use of language made it likely people would read that into it.

[quote userid="3169" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234660#234660"]Arlo - have a look here - I think you are dropping into the overprotective sphere discussed[/quote]

OK, so that is a completely different and interesting argument.

So far the debate has been about how shouting 'offence' is used to close down debate in this 'woke' era. I've explained that this is a completely separate issue to the one that concerns me ... which is the limitations of the written word and how it polarises debate and causes genuine, not manufactured offence. And how it seems likely that in the bigger picture, it is changing how people interact with each other offline.

"You're being too protective" is something else.

Am I?

I guess I am being protective to some degree. But over protective?

I have been more exposed than you to the offence, hurt (whatever you want to call it) that is caused by the limitations of the written word, because a) I run the forums, and b) I've been doing it a long time.

Yes, I guess that does influence me and it does make me feel a bit protective. On two fronts. First, I run a club, of sorts, and I want my members to enjoy themselves, to go away saying nice things about my club, and to encourage their friends to come and join in. I am protective of my club.

I am very clear that people being less than polite in these forums achieves precisely the opposite of that.

I am protective of the members. Overworked, stressed, prone to suicide. Do I want to facilitate something which adds to that list? Well, I guess if it was absolutely necessary for a good standard of discussion maybe. But I don't believe it is.

PS I am not trying to protect anyone from being offended per se. Just to prevent unnecessary offence caused by authors failing to recognise the limitations of the written word and failing to adapt their language in a way that is appropriate for social media.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 00:06:59 GMT

Arlo - have a look here - I think you are dropping into the overprotective sphere discussed

www.youtube.com/watch

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:46:32 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234613#234613"]If we set out to try and not cause offence then this naturally leads to causing no offence whatsoever - the base denominator. I get offended by lectures on BOAS from referral surgeons. Should they therefore not lecture on it?[/quote]

I think there is a difference in our definition of offence. I see no issue in never trying to cause offence, but, then again, I wouldn't see disagreeing with another opinion as offensive to me.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:42:17 GMT

[quote userid="3685" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234645#234645"]I’m also given to overthinking things-yet didn’t take it the way you did.[/quote]

To be fair, I read through the sentence a couple of times as it initially seemed harsh .. but I also decided the criticism was of the people making the microaggressive comments, not of the people who made the poster. But the mistake in interpretation is also because the whole tone of the reply is adversarial, which inevitably causes the reader to be reactive. If the reply was open and, for want of a better word, more 'friendly', the reader is likely to interpret comments differently.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Nicola Cole — Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:10:00 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234638#234638"]

Whatever you meant, and it is hard to see any other meaning, it read that way to me, and I am neither stupid nor particularly given to taking offence (especially on someone else's behalf).

Nicola Cole said:
When I read Daniella’s reply I thought ‘where has that come from, that’s obviously not what he was saying’.

Well, you're not the person who created or had a hand in creating the poster, and I don't think you've been a target on here before, so I don't doubt you would read it differently.

And that is EXACTLY my point about the weakness of the written word and the way it magnifies meaning in the imagination of the reader, and polarises debate, and therefore why it demands more thoughtful deployment online.

[/quote]

Yes…but I made a point earlier about a ‘one strike and you’re out (for x months)’ rule being harsh-for exactly this kind of reason. A simple statement, taken 2 different ways and you’re out? It’s so subjective. Yes, I think people should be careful about what they write and I’m certainly not one to try and offend. I’m also given to overthinking things-yet didn’t take it the way you did.

RE: Social Media, Anger and Us

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 21 Dec 2021 09:54:44 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/site-support-discussions/30113/social-media-anger-and-us/234638#234638"]No, it is very simple, all you have to do is think of the reader when you're criticising, remember the impact of the written word, and tone it down for the Internet. [/quote]

It also means that the person writing the post has to actively NOT want to upset of offend, and feel bad if they did so.

Some of the replies here seem to be arguing for the right to offend, as if it is a valid part of debate. There is a big difference in inadvertantly upsetting someone, which we can all do occasionally, and writing a reply knowing full well it is likely to do so - 'To get a rise out of them', as you earlier put it.