"You can disagree without being disagreeable"

[Carol in Cal.]

"You can disagree without being disagreeable."

 

My grandmother used to say that, and I think it's really wise and true.

 

I've been thinking about the echo chamber thing, and I conclude that that is my echo chamber.  I'm not unwilling to be disagreed with, but I'm not wild about being treated with contempt or addressed with furious or clipped tones.  I'm not crazy about being told what to do, either, especially by people who disrespect other people's boundaries.

 

I have almost literally turned myself inside out on quite a few occasions to state my views calmly and warmly here about subjects that I feel very deeply about and for which my real instinct is to yell and scream.  This is because I respect the other people here so much, and I really do want to understand them and I really do want them to understand me.  I love it when people treat me that way, too.

 

We have something extremely important and relatively rare in common, and it's a good thing to have each other.  My view is that when the tone is really bad, it makes this a far less welcoming place.  Yes, I think, we can disagree without being disagreeable.  That's the extent of the echo chamber that I want.  

[maize]

I will join you.

[Carol in Cal.]

Oh good!

[OneStepAtATime]

I don't like being disagreeable.  Thankfully, I rarely need to be.  :) 

[Mrs. Tharp]

Sounds good. I value civility. It can be something of an art online.

[Lucy the Valiant]

Well said.

[texasmama]

Works for me!

[Slache]

Very well put.

[Anne in CA]

This is a thought dear to my heart. Thanks for saying this so well.

[ElizabethB]

I do think unmannerly disagreements have been worse this past year, but there was always disagreements here, and sometimes heated ones. I stay out of controversial threads for the most part, although if it involves sight words I cannot help myself.

 

Once, Spy Car and I were discussing use of my phonics lessons with a child without using the beginning or end, which is where the scripture and Christian references are. I went off to do laundry and educate my children and returned to several pages of people arguing for and against without either of us even there...when I got back we settled the manner, it was amusing that people were having a fight in our behalf with what they thought we each might think or say or do. Poor Spy Car got back to the thread a bit before I did...

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't mind heated.  

I don't mind passionate.

 

I mind lengthy and contemptuous derogatory arguments, and that is much worse now, I think.

[Guest]

I agree! I aspire to that sentiment, though I occasionally (and sometimes spectacularly) fail when tensions are high. But I try really, really hard to speak clearly and without emotion or cynicism in debates. It's really necessary to helping things stay in line and not crash and burn.

[Catwoman]

I'm going to run out of likes on this one thread! :)

[Pawz4me]

I totally agree with you, but I'm going to carefully wade in here and state the obvious and remind everyone to keep in mind that "tone" is a two way street.  I've seen rude and snarky here at times, but more often I've seen people accused of being rude or snarky and been totally baffled by the accusation.  And I'm referring to discussions that I wasn't a part of, where I felt like a fairly unbiased observer.

 

So in addition to encouraging folks to be polite with their posts, I'd also encourage thinking twice before assuming someone is replying with rudeness.  It's often SO hard to tell.  Unless it's really blatant, why not give some benefit of the doubt?  And shoot -- even if something is plainly meant to be rude or snarky, if you ignore the tone then IMO you (generic) "win."  As a reader I'm thinking "Good for you for taking the high road and ignoring so-and-so's rudeness."  We're all smart enough here to realize when someone is taking the high road, I think.  And I doubt that it goes unappreciated.

 

:slinking back off to lurk on these contentious threads:

[PrincessMommy]

very well put, Carol

[VaKim]

 especially by people who disrespect other people's boundaries.

 

 

This! It seems that so many people have no respect for boundaries anymore. As if they think they should not exist and it is their duty to go in and tear them down. The rest of your post was great too, but this stood out to me as if it were in big, flashing, orange letters!

[DawnM]

It always takes me aback when something rather benign is said and another person goes completely off into attack mode.  I can see getting very offended and angry over something that was meant to be inflammatory (not agreeing that it is right, but just saying I can see where that might lead) , but far too often I see something not meant to be offensive at all and another will just attack.

 

There is a book I have not yet read, but have heard a lot about.....it is called, Choosing Civility.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Choosing-Civility-Twenty-five-Considerate-Conduct/dp/0312302509/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1427027880&sr=8-3&keywords=the+art+of+civility

 

 

[Joanne]

The challenge with this is that the range of tolerance for discord, dissention, and engagement is a continuum. It is influenced by many things; family of origin, current family culture, the poster/reader's current stress level, purpose for being here......... the list is extensive.

 

What one person might read as "disagreeable" could feel benign to another.

 

How do you quantify it, formulate rules/guidelines?

 

Does very civil, restrained, and an avoidance of topics formerly avoided in public discource trump people who have a desire for passionate discourse and an elevated tolerance for heated exchange? IMO, there isn't a "right" answer.

 

It's an elusive target.

 

 

 

[texasmama]

lol, you know that echo chamber thread of mine is a bit of light-hearted banter...right ?

 

It's mostly about cake. 

 

I respectfully disagree that there are groups here with a monopoly on unpleasantness, and there are only so many ways one can dress disagreeable ideas up as lovely ones...but to give you your due Carol, you are one poster I would put in the 'tries to listen and communicate kindly' group. Kudos to you - you put your money where your mouth is.

I personally do not think any one person or group has a monopoly on unpleasantness.  I didn't get that from reading the OP.

 

It really helps to learn the personalities of the posters, IMO.  It provides a filter of sorts.  Some people have a very direct posting style, and this is interpreted as rude.  Some people have a dry sense of humor and are actually joking, but it is missed.  Many times clarification questions are read as rude when I believe they are intended as clarification questions.  

 

We would be having a very different conversation here in my living room over coffee.

 

I also agree with Joanne.  It is an elusive target.  I will shoot for it, though.   :)

 

ETA:  Knowing one's own personal tolerance for heated discourse and avoiding engaging in threads with this going on helps.  As someone upthread mentioned, it is sometimes difficult to know what will become heated.  I do think that, on balance, the Hive knows this and pokes fun at itself a bit.  (shopping carts, crock pots....)

[texasmama]

Also, since I am already verbose on the topic, let me add that even as a person who overall does not enjoy the heated debates, I see their value and appreciate them.  It is possible to be so polite that it is like attending a masquerade ball and you only ever see the mask someone is wearing.  There is no benefit in that.

[Slache]

lol, you know that echo chamber thread of mine is a bit of light-hearted banter...right ?

 

It's mostly about cake. 

 

I respectfully disagree that there are groups here with a monopoly on unpleasantness, and there are only so many ways one can dress disagreeable ideas up as lovely ones...but to give you your due Carol, you are one poster I would put in the 'tries to listen and communicate kindly' group. Kudos to you - you put your money where your mouth is.

 

Don't disagree with us! Unless you bring cake. Then it's OK.

[Halftime Hope]

Thank you, Carol.  I so appreciate what you said.  I often filter things through my young adults' eyes, and it is an issue that they are encountering often.  Their peers--at least a substantial number of them, in several very diverse milieus--don't seem to understand that a difference of opinion is not an attack.  One son, in particular, is surprised that his peer groups seems to be polarized into two kinds of discussions, complete assent or outright hostility.  Since he is in a position of leadership or fairly visible in several of the groups (he's the kids of person who changes the dynamic of a room, very unlike me -- LOL!) he is trying to model the concept you stated; it is much needed as these young adults work out their own thoughts.  OTOH, my daughter loves her grad school cohort, as there is such civility in the midst of heated and passionate discourse.

 

I've noticed that I tend to read posts here with more grace on a second reading.  Sometimes what sounds rudeness initially doesn't strike me as such 20 minutes later.  Hmmm....

 

 

 

 

[JoJosMom]

It always takes me aback when something rather benign is said and another person goes completely off into attack mode.  I can see getting very offended and angry over something that was meant to be inflammatory (not agreeing that it is right, but just saying I can see where that might lead) , but far too often I see something not meant to be offensive at all and another will just attack.

 

There is a book I have not yet read, but have heard a lot about.....it is called, Choosing Civility.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Choosing-Civility-Twenty-five-Considerate-Conduct/dp/0312302509/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1427027880&sr=8-3&keywords=the+art+of+civility

 

Interesting link; thanks.

[Guest]

Thank you, Carol. I so appreciate what you said. I often filter things through my young adults' eyes, and it is an issue that they are encountering often. Their peers--at least a substantial number of them, in several very diverse milieus--don't seem to understand that a difference of opinion is not an attack. One son in particular, is surprised that his peer group seems to be polarized into two kinds of discussions, complete assent or outright hostility. Since he is in a position of leadership in this peer group, he is trying to model the concept you stated: it is much needed as these young adults work out their own thoughts. OTOH, my daughter loves her grad school cohort, as there is such civility in the midst of heated and passionate discourse.

 

I've noticed that I tend to read posts here with more grace on a second reading. Sometimes what sounds rudeness initially doesn't strike me as such 20 minutes later. Hmmm....

That is frustrating as well! I mentioned this somewhere else but it seems any truth or morality claim these days, however personally, benignly, and clearly stated, is taken as an attack on anyone who doesn't claim that exact same statement. Any claims to objective moral truth are right out. Disagreeing with someone in some settings, like many colleges these days, is considered unthinkable and heinous. I kid you not - it is mind boggling how many people feel they should be insulated from ever having to encounter a different opinion or hear a dissenting voice. I completely agree we do NOT want to veer into that territory.

 

That's why I always go back to tone check. I can control whether I respond, and the intention with which I respond. If I know my intentions were good, I made a solid effort to communicate well, and I dealt with the topic and idea and not the poster as a person? That is good enough for me no matter how much a thread might blow up or what moderating happens. But I also know there have been times I've definitely poked people with sticks out of annoyance or anger, knowing how to set them off or spite them. It's petty, and something I work actively to avoid, however it's just the truth that it doesn't always happen despite aspirations to the contrary.

 

I think the line is maintaining civility and kindness even while debating. I cannot control how someone receives my words, but I can control how I deliver them. Therein lies wisdom, and it is a needful thing in navigating large group conversations.

[Mrs. Tharp]

 

 

We have something extremely important and relatively rare in common, and it's a good thing to have each other.  My view is that when the tone is really bad, it makes this a far less welcoming place.  Yes, I think, we can disagree without being disagreeable.  That's the extent of the echo chamber that I want.  

 

I think it's important to remember even online, the tone and phrasing a person uses is at least as important as the content they are communicating. IRL, so much of this is communicated through body language.  I think so many of these issues would vanish if we were able watch someone's face and listen to their tone of voice when they spoke. In face to face communication, the spoken word is inextricable from the person speaking.

 

Online, the tendency can be to treat the words as though they were written in a vaccum. Of course they aren't. People still feel the same investment in what they write, but we never get the full picture. We never see their body language. So,  no matter how carefully people choose their words, the possibility of being misunderstood, and feeling disrespected,  will always be dramatically higher when we have to rely on written communication to express deeply held beliefs, arguments, etc. 

 

I guess it does come down to civility. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Take the high road. Treat others as you'd like to be treated. If you offend someone, apologize sincerely. If someone says you are offending them, but you don't agree, apologize anyway.

[Paige]

 

I guess it does come down to civility. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Take the high road. Treat others as you'd like to be treated. If you offend someone, apologize sincerely. If someone says you are offending them, but you don't agree, apologize anyway.

 

I agree so much with most of your post and the sentiment, but I don't think the last part, which I bolded, is always the best policy. 

 

I try to be kind, civil, and to assume good intentions of the people I interact with online and in person. I try to not take offense and not to get upset. I do my best. 

 

If I inadvertently upset someone, I try to apologize where appropriate, but to always apologize? I'm not so sure. It sort of leaves us at the mercy of the most sensitive in the group. I think about my interactions with my children. It's normal for the youngest in the family to cry and get upset over little things. I think it is normal in most families. I tell my kids not to deliberately upset the baby, to anticipate when she may be more sensitive to something than an older child, but sometimes, I need to tell the youngest to suck it up and not be so sensitive. I know...that's going to come across as terribly insensitive in this context, but I think it still applies. It would be unfair to my children to have them always apologize to the youngest for upsetting her when they truly did nothing wrong. Not only would it be unfair, but pretty soon, my older kids would simply stop playing with her. It would be unfair to my youngest to not tell her when she's being ridiculous and getting upset about nothing and then leave her wondering why nobody wants to play. 

 

We have no right to expect others to never offend us, because others can't always predict what will cause offense. I am solely responsible for my feelings and reactions. Sometimes, we need to stand by what we say even if others are offended. Of course, I am sorry that they may be offended, but I will not always take back what I say. If we expect people to be honest in their dealings with us, and in their posts, and if we want a genuine conversation, we have to be open to feeling a little offended here and there and be able to roll with it.

 

I think personal attacks are never ok and never needed, but similarly, unless someone says something like, "Paige on the WTM is definitely an idiot," I try not to take it personally. I may believe X, and someone may say, "People who believe X are idiots," but I don't think that is meant to be a personal attack. I think we could think, "Well, I believe X and am not an idiot, so they are misinformed." 

[Saddlemomma]

Yup!  I totally agree.  I just bailed on a thread here, hopefully gracefully, due to the tone just beginning to turn south in my discussion.  No need to perpetuate the southern spiral and ruin it for everyone else.

[FloridaLisa]

And the people who are like this IRL? They are gems to be around. GEMS. 

 

So refreshing to hear someone disagree with polite questions and some probing to understand. 

 

Lisa

[Mrs. Tharp]

I agree so much with most of your post and the sentiment, but I don't think the last part, which I bolded, is always the best policy. 

 

I try to be kind, civil, and to assume good intentions of the people I interact with online and in person. I try to not take offense and not to get upset. I do my best. 

 

If I inadvertently upset someone, I try to apologize where appropriate, but to always apologize? I'm not so sure. It sort of leaves us at the mercy of the most sensitive in the group. I think about my interactions with my children. It's normal for the youngest in the family to cry and get upset over little things. I think it is normal in most families. I tell my kids not to deliberately upset the baby, to anticipate when she may be more sensitive to something than an older child, but sometimes, I need to tell the youngest to suck it up and not be so sensitive. I know...that's going to come across as terribly insensitive in this context, but I think it still applies. It would be unfair to my children to have them always apologize to the youngest for upsetting her when they truly did nothing wrong. Not only would it be unfair, but pretty soon, my older kids would simply stop playing with her. It would be unfair to my youngest to not tell her when she's being ridiculous and getting upset about nothing and then leave her wondering why nobody wants to play. 

 

We have no right to expect others to never offend us, because others can't always predict what will cause offense. I am solely responsible for my feelings and reactions. Sometimes, we need to stand by what we say even if others are offended. Of course, I am sorry that they may be offended, but I will not always take back what I say. If we expect people to be honest in their dealings with us, and in their posts, and if we want a genuine conversation, we have to be open to feeling a little offended here and there and be able to roll with it.

 

I think personal attacks are never ok and never needed, but similarly, unless someone says something like, "Paige on the WTM is definitely an idiot," I try not to take it personally. I may believe X, and someone may say, "People who believe X are idiots," but I don't think that is meant to be a personal attack. I think we could think, "Well, I believe X and am not an idiot, so they are misinformed." 

 

I hear you. That's a good point. I suppose, like everything, it depends on the situation. :D

 

[PineFarmMom]

Yup! I totally agree. I just bailed on a thread here, hopefully gracefully, due to the tone just beginning to turn south in my discussion. No need to perpetuate the southern spiral and ruin it for everyone else.

That is my best line of self-care!! If I can tell it is going to go somewhere and I'll get too involved, I MUST walk away!! I don't have time or emotional energy to go back and forth with someone. If I have to pick arguing over some stupid carp on a message board or playing games/cooking/watching a movie wjth my kids...they win!! Lol

 

This is an excellent op as well!!

[momacacia]

We call it "agreeing to disagree" at our house.

[Barb_]

Yes! Some of my favorite people on this board are those with whom I'm at odds ideologically. My best friend and I disagree on some really fundamental issues, but I love her because we make each other think. Then we drink wine and laugh at our kids and hug and kiss goodbye. Vive la différence!

[PrincessMommy]

That is frustrating as well! I mentioned this somewhere else but it seems any truth or morality claim these days, however personally, benignly, and clearly stated, is taken as an attack on anyone who doesn't claim that exact same statement. Any claims to objective moral truth are right out. Disagreeing with someone in some settings, like many colleges these days, is considered unthinkable and heinous. I kid you not - it is mind boggling how many people feel they should be insulated from ever having to encounter a different opinion or hear a dissenting voice. I completely agree we do NOT want to veer into that territory.

 

That's why I always go back to tone check. I can control whether I respond, and the intention with which I respond. If I know my intentions were good, I made a solid effort to communicate well, and I dealt with the topic and idea and not the poster as a person? That is good enough for me no matter how much a thread might blow up or what moderating happens. But I also know there have been times I've definitely poked people with sticks out of annoyance or anger, knowing how to set them off or spite them. It's petty, and something I work actively to avoid, however it's just the truth that it doesn't always happen despite aspirations to the contrary.

 

I think the line is maintaining civility and kindness even while debating. I cannot control how someone receives my words, but I can control how I deliver them. Therein lies wisdom, and it is a needful thing in navigating large group conversations.

 

your statement reminded me of this recent story about Jay Leno:

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/20/jay_leno_rails_on_political_correctness_college_kids_today_have_no_idea_what_racism_is/

 

 

 

[IsabelC]

I honestly don't know how some of you can remember lots of details about hundreds of members, but I am in awe of that ability.

I really only feel like I'm familiar - to a limited extent - with maybe a couple of dozen members whose posts I find the most interesting / helpful / enjoyable to read. Although there are certainly a few members whom I like and admire greatly even though they disagree with me on hot topics (and very possibly dislike me) so I will agree that "disagreeing without being disagreeable" is possible. 

[Carol in Cal.]

... you are one poster I would put in the 'tries to listen and communicate kindly' group. Kudos to you - you put your money where your mouth is.

Sadie, this is really nice of you to say.  Thank you--it does not come naturally to me.  

[Spy Car]

I do think unmannerly disagreements have been worse this past year, but there was always disagreements here, and sometimes heated ones. I stay out of controversial threads for the most part, although if it involves sight words I cannot help myself.

 

Once, Spy Car and I were discussing use of my phonics lessons with a child without using the beginning or end, which is where the scripture and Christian references are. I went off to do laundry and educate my children and returned to several pages of people arguing for and against without either of us even there...when I got back we settled the manner, it was amusing that people were having a fight in our behalf with what they thought we each might think or say or do. Poor Spy Car got back to the thread a bit before I did...

 

LOL. I remember this well.

 

Because I think your phonics resources are terrific, and because I think of you as a friend with whom I can speak with openly, I wondered if you might make a secular version of the lessons without Christian references? If there were such a thing, I had people I'd point towards them.

 

Oy. 

 

BTW, how's that secular version coming along? :D

 

Bill

[ElizabethB]

LOL. I remember this well.

 

Because I think your phonics resources are terrific, and because I think of you as a friend with whom I can speak with openly, I wondered if you might make a secular version of the lessons without Christian references? If there were such a thing, I had people I'd point towards them.

 

Oy.

 

BTW, how's that secular version coming along? :D

 

Bill

There is a written version on my how to tutor page and and one for well educated children here:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/WellTaughtPhonicsStudent.html

 

The video version is going very slowly. I have completed 1/60 tasks in the last 6 months. For my husband's current job I have to do politician spouse type duties, as well as my normal stuff. When we move this summer, I should be able to do more once we get settled. BTW, I never want to be a politician or politician's wife. I knew that already but am now even more sure that it would be a horrible fit for my personality.