Jinn

If this board teaches me any one thing, it's that either (a) my writing skills are far inferior to my verbal skills or (b) other's reading skills are far inferior to their listening skills. I've been using the "internet" for almost 10 years now, and it seems that whenever I communicate a strong feeling in text, its always interpreted differently then it would be in a spoken conversation. I think this is due to a lot of things, mostly that inflection and intent are not well communicated. Furthermore, I can better measure a listener's interpretation and reaction to what I've said by their facial features and mannerisms, and clarify my position before a set in stone "Fuck you JinnKai" appears in their brain.

Having hopped from message board to message board in the last 6 or so years, I've also had the difficulty of determining how verbose I should truly make any given post. In face-to-face conversation, you're likely both discussing a topic because you enjoy it, and you remain in the conversation until one of you leaves -- at which point the conversation ceases. On a dynamic page like a forum, however, the conversation can continue in your absense, and often take a less-than-desired turn before you can counteract the misinterpretations of your words. Worst of all, you don't get a chance to restate something rashly or poorly said, as it's emblazoned in size 12 Arial for all to see.

My generalized conclusion regarding all of these things is that (generally) shorter posts make for far better communication -- the longer I make my posts, the less likely readers are to read and understand the post entirely. Because they're non-active participants in the conversation when they first arrive, a long introductory or response posting is likely to make them hurriedly smash their Back button before they're forced to read the novel that the person replied with. Much like this post; I suspect, even expect, that the majority of the original posters in this thread will not return to read this response. It's either too wordy, or they've already dismissed me as a selfish juvenile. I feel that those who take the time to actually read my oftentimes verbose posts agree with me, and do not take the time to reply.

So in about 2004, I began the process of shortening my posts so that they would be more likely to be read -- after all, if no one is reading my post, then I'm truly talking to myself. However, the risk of writing "short and sweet" responses is that they often you cannot fully explain your reasoning behind a statement, and you're often relying on the reader's ability to notice important qualifiers and boldface and realize that you're saying THIS and not THAT.

In the case of this post, the most oft misunderstood quote was mine;

I added a different emphasis, one which will hopefully clarify the intent of a one sentence reponse to a previous poster. It is not that I only care for the opinions of others who have something I need, but that those who choose to judge me (whether based on my words or actions) deserve far less of my time and concern than those who refuse to judge me and listen based merely on the content of my message. In this sense, I hope you can see how I view judging someone based on any attribute of the conversation other than the content as "close-minded." The qualification that I would continue to tolerate or listen to someone so close-minded does not entail selfishness, only a realistic tempering of a philosophical concept. Because we are all individuals who rely on other individuals to supply us with things, we must sometimes deal with people who we do not appreciate on an intellectual case. This was in response to Cyn and Ustwo's comments that I would not, understandly, use swear words when in a job interview. This is true -- even if I did not like the interviewer, for whatever reason, I'd abstain from using language I knew would be offensive.

Now -- on to the OP. The reason I acted vehemently to the original post is that it implies a certain level of censorship, a political concept which I hope to only briefly touch on.

The original post (and quite a few of the replies) implied their own unique disparaging of someone who would use curse words, including stupidity and a lack of class. This seems foolish to me, and I replied with the foolishness in mind. I'm an active member of the EFF and other organizations who oppose censorship in all forms, and it is a very important "principle" to my life at large. I agree with analog in saying that

.. and I suspect that no one here disagrees with this concept. However, I feel a concept that few understand is that offense is a choice. Whether your offense is under my control or not, it is still a choice that you make when feeling "offended" by someone's manner or language. This is a lesson that I learned a very young age, and I assumed that many others had learned the same. When a bully egged me on repeatedly with "you're a faggot you're a faggot you're a faggot" every time I responded with "no I'm not" or "shut up," it encouraged the bully to continue the behavior. By chosing to be offended to his language and react, I only gave him a greater resolve with which to torment me. When I failed to be offended or even react, the bullying soon stopped (or moved to a different point of entry). I'm not justifying swearing, only hoping to encourage the idea that the less you get offended at the better.

On my actual use of "cuss" words, it is often quite slim. Becuase I'm at work half of the day and at University in class the rest of the day, my general demeanor is quite formal. When I was demoing a new version of our product to hundreds of customers and about 50 of my coworkers, I certainly was very aware of my language -- not only the avoidance of "offensive" terminology, but also language that could paint our product in any negative light.

My defense of the "right" to swear is not because I inherently desire it, but because I believe everyone should have the right to say what they want, and reap the consequences of it thusly. We do NOT, however, have the right to avoid offense. People will say offensive things all of the time, and I believe it is a precept of a strong nation that we allow dissenting and inappropriate beliefs to continue. Any attempt to censor others is a de facto admission that we do not support ideals other than our own. Even the message that women should be more "independent" and avoid the Paris Hilton-esque model is an example of censorship. For people LIKE Paris Hilton and people who DO want to be dependent, it is a way of life. To tell them that this is wrong is censoring their voice and ability to live their life in a way they see fit. Yes liberal hippy bullshit on my part, so I'm sorry to any conservative person who made it this far.

Additionally, I think the notion by many posters in this thread that you should place your own comfort below that of others is a dangerous notion, and only setting yourself for abuse. Keeping your comfort at the same level as others is far more healthy, as it allows you to keep a thin level of tolerance -- I will be kind and avoid certain things to keep you happy, but I will not lose part of my critical being in order to KEEP you happy. Too often I hear abused women say that they let it happen because they just wanted HIM to be happy. This comes about by an attitude that says we should set ourselves below others, and serve the greater good before ourself. I'm not saying that we should NOT serve the greater good, but we should be PART of the greater good in that consideration.

Just as many of you value the ability to not say certain things when you know they will be offensive, I ALSO value the ability to not be offended when certain things are said. I think it is a mark of a strong morality and strong control of your emotions when you can recognize something offensive and chose not to let it bother you. Far too many people will take somsething said in a light-hearted manner and take it so personally that they'd demonize the other person. It's the "political correctness" movement that I'm referring to; avoiding certain phrases and mannerisms is certainly acceptable, but asking others to is an intellectual censorship that I'm never going to be comfortable condoning, no matter my age. And that brings me to my final point:

The use of age-specific insults: In most boards that I frequented in my younger years, I avoided disclosing my age for fear that people whould begin to implicitly judge me based on my age, again rather than the content of my message. I never saw a case where I was able to disclose my age and not be the brunt of age-related insults like sonny or my young JinnKai -- until I came to TFP. I felt comfortable disclosing my admittedly young age because I felt like I wouldn't be judged by it, but by my ability to defend my position honorably. This thread has made me really reconsider my disclosure of my age; however, it appears that those who would use it to attack me have already done so, and I hope to see it cease in the future. Beyond that, I'm going to chose not to be offended by the personal attacks in this thread, on both the belief expressed in this post and also because they were partially due to my all-too-brief responses.

So there you have it. I either write a fuckishly long response that no one will take the time to read, or I write an entirely too short message that everyone will take the opportunity to attack me on, even if their vehemence is only the result of a misinterpretation on their part.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel