![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My mom was telling me of a discussion that she had with a good friend of hers and, as things tend to do with this friend, the conversation drifted into politics, specifically Sarah Palin. And, as also always happens when Sarah Palin is mentioned, the commentary became much more personal than political. The conversation ended with discussion on how Sarah Palin went hunting and killed a caribou. “Anyone who can enjoy killing an animal like that,” said this friend of my mothers, “is a really horrible person.”
At which point my mother – a farmer, hunter and outdoorswoman all her life – looked at her friend and said, “Well, it’s nice to know what you really think of me.”
It hurt my mother, I know, that this friend of hers said that, felt that way. I also know that insulting my mother was not the intention. People get wound up and entitled and say things that can’t be unsaid. There were apologies and changes of conversation, but that realization can’t be removed. It’s always there, that little bit of truth of what people think of you. I know that it lingers in my mom’s mind.
It’s a situation I run into online. People’s journals are private, personal things. I know this. It’s true even if the journal is called a blog and is posted for all the world to see. Because of this, they are full of the overstatement and hyperbole that comes from that freedom of private catharsis. There’s also a tendency for bloggers to assume that those they interact with are just like them. There’s logic behind it “If you like X, Y and Z, as I do, then you must also agree with A, B, and C”.
Most of the time the commentary isn’t even specific, they don’t mean any particular person. They just write in the general “Us v. Them” form: “People who do/think/believe/are WHATEVER are evil”. “People” not a specific individual. No. They would never actually insult a friend of theirs. It’s other “people” who are that way. It’s like that line in Men in Black “A person is smart. People are dumb”. It sounds really good until you realize that every one of those “people” is a person and that the “them” you are talking about may actually be one of the “us”.
The fact is I’m often the “them” on these rants. We don’t even have to get into the big stuff like politics or religion or how organic is the food you eat. Nope. You can throw a dart at fandom and hit an unpopular opinion that I hold.
Usually it’s not a problem. I can skip over posts that are blatantly hostile and have a bit discussion with those who aren’t. I don’t wear my heart on my sleeve and I don’t tend to wield my opinions like a sledgehammer (despite what the icon shows). I understand the harshness and exclusivity of such posts may come from the medium rather than the intent of the author. As a rational, logical, thinking person, I can do that. Usually.
But still, sometimes when I read what’s been written, I can’t help think, “So this is what they really think of me”. It’s kind like finding out you’re the enemy when all along you’ve been treated as a friend. And I never know quite what to do with that.
At which point my mother – a farmer, hunter and outdoorswoman all her life – looked at her friend and said, “Well, it’s nice to know what you really think of me.”
It hurt my mother, I know, that this friend of hers said that, felt that way. I also know that insulting my mother was not the intention. People get wound up and entitled and say things that can’t be unsaid. There were apologies and changes of conversation, but that realization can’t be removed. It’s always there, that little bit of truth of what people think of you. I know that it lingers in my mom’s mind.
It’s a situation I run into online. People’s journals are private, personal things. I know this. It’s true even if the journal is called a blog and is posted for all the world to see. Because of this, they are full of the overstatement and hyperbole that comes from that freedom of private catharsis. There’s also a tendency for bloggers to assume that those they interact with are just like them. There’s logic behind it “If you like X, Y and Z, as I do, then you must also agree with A, B, and C”.
Most of the time the commentary isn’t even specific, they don’t mean any particular person. They just write in the general “Us v. Them” form: “People who do/think/believe/are WHATEVER are evil”. “People” not a specific individual. No. They would never actually insult a friend of theirs. It’s other “people” who are that way. It’s like that line in Men in Black “A person is smart. People are dumb”. It sounds really good until you realize that every one of those “people” is a person and that the “them” you are talking about may actually be one of the “us”.
The fact is I’m often the “them” on these rants. We don’t even have to get into the big stuff like politics or religion or how organic is the food you eat. Nope. You can throw a dart at fandom and hit an unpopular opinion that I hold.
Usually it’s not a problem. I can skip over posts that are blatantly hostile and have a bit discussion with those who aren’t. I don’t wear my heart on my sleeve and I don’t tend to wield my opinions like a sledgehammer (despite what the icon shows). I understand the harshness and exclusivity of such posts may come from the medium rather than the intent of the author. As a rational, logical, thinking person, I can do that. Usually.
But still, sometimes when I read what’s been written, I can’t help think, “So this is what they really think of me”. It’s kind like finding out you’re the enemy when all along you’ve been treated as a friend. And I never know quite what to do with that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-03 07:00 am (UTC)From:Many "hunters" when watching the video of Palin killing the Caribou spotted a lot of clues that suggest she is not an experienced hunter
no subject
Date: 2011-02-03 02:20 pm (UTC)From:When people make blanket statements they are often being condescending and hurtful to those they are talking to. When is especially true in the big button issues like politics, religion and the like, it is as equally true anytime people become so entrenched in an emotional response to any issue or topic that they refuse to acknowledge that anyone (especially someone they interact with) can legitimately hold an opposing view.
And while it's all the rage to make sweeping sarcastic or contemptuous statements for humor or to paint those who disagree as ignorant or evil, in reality it only shows the lack of forethought and downright intellectual laziness on the part of the speaker. It's always been far easier to propagandize your opponents as evil/stupid/whatever than to engage in a conversation where you need to acknowledge that your view is not the only view.