Yesterday’s column
… is generating some very interesting discussion in the comments section. The mother of a boy with trichotillomania wrote in to ask if my answer would have been the same for a man. Obviously, my general principle — that caring for your health overrides the ritual aspects of etiquette — would be, but the tactics might be very different. The conversation also goes into some of the godawful comments that people with disabilities or unusual appearances are subjected to by strangers. As commenter Ridley put it, “[H]oly hell people just don’t know how to talk to the disabled. My limbs don’t work great, but my feelings and vanity are still functional. I wish people would just remember we’re still people and mind their manners.”
I’d recommend checking it out — and I’d love to hear your ideas.
Filed under Uncategorized | Comments (8)
8 Responses to “Yesterday’s column”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
Question for Miss Conduct AND anyone else who has ideas:
Just read the discussion, and enjoyed most of it very much. However, I also reported Scuba62′s comment, as I felt it was unacceptable. However, I wanted to leave a comment responding to her/his second comment, but couldn’t put together the words. How does one counter the argument “Well, it’s just my opinion” when facing hateful speech? (If one wishes to debate, that is, and not just shut the conversation down?)
geekgirl99, I would say Robin’s response in that discussion was great.
But to answer your question myself, what I do when faced with such people is say, “It’s my opinion that you’re being a jerk. I guess it’s not your goal in life to be respectful and kind. You may have the freedom to say what you want, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to call you out on your douchebag actions (and, if applicable, delete your comments from a website under private control).”
Is that too caustic?
I think it’s our ethical duty as a society to hold people accountable to a modicum of basic human decency, at the least.
For people like Scuba62 who seem to feel entitled to spout their hatefulness anywhere and not be challenged, the best thing we can do is frankly call them out on their crap.
Stupendousness, it has been my experience that calling someone names (a jerk, douchebaggy, etc.) *never* ends well, unless they already know and respect you enough that your assessment really shocks them and forces them to step back and reconsider their actions. It works rarely with close friends, never with strangers.
How about “Your comment was disrespectful and unkind”?
Of course, I didn’t get a chance to read the removed comment. Perhaps if I had I’d be a bit caustic myself.
The first comment, in essence, asserted that mental illness does not exist. Had Scuba62 appeared to be *wanting* to actually discuss, and wasn’t just being a troll, I might have engaged them.
Generally, on blogs I think are moderated well, some initial guidelines are set. For any discussion on mental illness, for example, the blogger might set out parameters such as “Please only comment if you accept the reality of mental illness, and the essential dignity and worth of people who have mental illnesses.”
You can’t spend your entire day explaining to people why mental illness is real, why sexism and racism still exist, why evolution is correct, etc. etc. etc. You have to set understanding those facts as the minimum requirements for participating in the discussion.
Thanks to all for the helpful comments! (I do feel lucky that I hardly ever run into this sort of behavior in physical interactions, only online.) And Robin, I did appreciate your response on Boston.com to Scuba62 as well.
The other part of scuba62′s idiocy that I think is worth addressing (not that I did, but after going over the comment length on my first response and adding two postscripts, I’ve banned myself from commenting again on that thread – I’m trying to exercise SOME self control) is the “it’s just my opinion” statement. The implication there is that I have a right to express any damn thing I want to, no matter how offensive, hurtful, stupid, off-topic, etc., because it’s my opinion. (These are the same people who believe that the first amendment guarantee of free speech has some sort of universal application – anything can be said in all places at all times – rather than simply guaranteeing that the government won’t muzzle you.)
But you don’t have the right to be offensive, hateful, etc on a privately-owned Web site. Most sites have some kind of standards, and those standards are entirely under the control of the owners of the site. If boston.com wants to ban pro-Yankee speech (unlikely, I guess, considering ownership!), it can. It’s more likely that it can, and will, delete comments that are hateful, threatening, or broadly offensive.
And the same principal goes in our private lives. We don’t have to listen to, tolerate, honor, or respect, outright offensive nonsense. We can say “I find your opinion so distasteful/offensive/upsetting/hateful/misguided that I need to end this discussion.” I don’t think that’s terribly effective as a comeback if used frequently, but delivered calmly and reasonably and only under serious provocation, it’s entirely appropriate.
I agree with all the above, but also have a problem dealing with people who say “it’s just my opinion” in support of things that are provably not true. We’re not talking about whether or not, say, Michelangelo was a great artist, about which an opinion makes sense. We’re talking about the reality of mental illness (and since I have one and it’s successfully treated medically, I’m saying it’s as real as it gets).
Not accepting a medical model here is like holding the opinion that the sky is bright yellow with black stripes, with the added problem that the sky does not have feelings to be hurt by this belief.
The statement I’ve heard that I like a lot is, “You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.”
Also, I am entitled not to be subjected to your opinion if I find it offensive, insulting, or off-topic.