Gregory's Server@grimalkina Mmm, I think I understand what you mean. Of course I agree different expectations are legitimate. For myself I'm used to IRC where, for good or bad, one tends to think of people as ephemeral lines of text. They join, they say stuff, they leave; maybe you meet them again, more likely not, and you definitely don't know who they are or what the rest of their life is like. So it's a very disembodied form of conversation where the text is almost supposed to speak for itself. Used to that, I don't mind randos to reply, build up, tear down or jump off from my posts. But if you start from a more social way of interacting this must seem very unpleasant. I do try to keep track of people's interaction styles, but it's not always easy. Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense to me now.
|
2 comments
 @grimalkina @modulux an ex of mine once explained to me that she found it really hard to think of anything (person or otherwise) on the other end of the keyboard as real. Given that I tend to assume that the dog nobody knows about on the internet is a genuine person, it was a significant clash of perspective. On the other hand it explained much of what I could see. That all said treating the other as person is the only way we can bring about something better. And I appreciate the call to do so. |
@modulux this is an interesting perspective! It sounds very lonely to me I must say. While I do think for me there is a large element of detachment (of course, I am aware I'm speaking in large part to strangers, and frequently ignore 'randos'), I find it mentally important to imagine the real people -- some of whom find me in real life at a work conference sometimes!! Or have weight on how my work is perceived with their words