![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You know something that's annoying every time it happens?
When you say something that rocked someone's boat and ultimately you just get banned for it right away. Completely leaving you without the possibility to respond "you took this all with your right half of the brain and with your locally-shaped cultural world view" and to point at the possibility that there can be other general mindsets out there under which you can interpret it.
This is so... Western internet outrage culture.
And no, I won't defend the Eastern Europeans against that or color them prettier.
Those have their other reasons why they snap at you quickly if they do.
It is annoying because it is the quick way to get rid of everything unpleasant and not needing to listen to anything that doesn't support the own filter bubble. There never happens a fact-check if that person really meant what the banner thought it is.
All just... emotion. "I want to be enraged". "I don't want to get to know that people can be different the way I imagine the world to be - I just want the world to be like I imagine it and execute some control over it."
Some kind of "overcoming the own powerlessness"-shit...
To all who might feel talked to by this: You know what? Ever thought that really everyone who speaks something that a category of idiots in your cultural circle would say too exactly is an idiot of that kind like you know?
That the world is a homogeneous place where all people think and are mentally structured like in your place, your country, your sphere?
This is even more prejudice than any obvious narrow-minded person could reveal.
And exactly this is why there is a need to not shut up if you don't fit into that category.
Point them people every time at this! Point them every time at it and emphasize "you take something for granted that isn't self-evident"!
You can do this the civilized way, no need for rage or big drama - as it leads to the serious question if it will have any effect at all if you bloat it with the same emotions that your counterpart used to give you a rebuke.
If they rage, make them crazy with diplomacy. Don't join their games. The psychological game is the effect that a brain consciously and/or unconsciously pursues.
Reacting on it will make you spin in an endless circle of blaming and shaming and bouncing those two back and forth. Which will lead to nothing in the end.
React with the left half of your brain and remain respectful, while trying to point at it tactfully "you can keep your life achievements, I haven't come to take anything from you".
Respect has the chance of impression anyone, while rage and precast judgments haven't.
No-one likes to be talked at in a loud voice! You know the verdict behind it anyway, otherwise someone wouldn't shout at you...
I wished more people knew a little about the psychological part of communication.
This could reduce the steady outrages and ranting about the other groups one is not part of.
And I mean "ranting" in the sense of "complaining about a group with automatic raise of the value of own self-assumed virtues". You know, narrow-minded narcissistic bullshit that thinks in "we're better than them simply because we're better than them"... Self-praise that looks at one's ego before real deeds. Preoccupation, partisanship... That kind of thing.
Not the "I try to soberly criticize you".
Psychology about communication would teach to keep all of these things in the back of your head about "don't think everyone in the world carries the same meaning of a word/phrase/idea around in its head". And this didn't apply only to text speech, it also was valid for verbal speech where you see all the gesticulation.
At least, it would be my guessing and maybe my silent hope that it would lead to people more trying to understand between the lines what a person exactly means instead of feeding one's ego about what one believes he meant and showering him with one's cultural and personal enemy images in a blow before he can say anything if he agrees or disagrees with the given title.
'Cause this is really a problem in all this shouting and holding reproaches against each other.
If everyone thinks he's right, well, then you know what comes out of it... They call it "civil war". People fighting against people. Ordinary people...
When you say something that rocked someone's boat and ultimately you just get banned for it right away. Completely leaving you without the possibility to respond "you took this all with your right half of the brain and with your locally-shaped cultural world view" and to point at the possibility that there can be other general mindsets out there under which you can interpret it.
This is so... Western internet outrage culture.
And no, I won't defend the Eastern Europeans against that or color them prettier.
Those have their other reasons why they snap at you quickly if they do.
It is annoying because it is the quick way to get rid of everything unpleasant and not needing to listen to anything that doesn't support the own filter bubble. There never happens a fact-check if that person really meant what the banner thought it is.
All just... emotion. "I want to be enraged". "I don't want to get to know that people can be different the way I imagine the world to be - I just want the world to be like I imagine it and execute some control over it."
Some kind of "overcoming the own powerlessness"-shit...
To all who might feel talked to by this: You know what? Ever thought that really everyone who speaks something that a category of idiots in your cultural circle would say too exactly is an idiot of that kind like you know?
That the world is a homogeneous place where all people think and are mentally structured like in your place, your country, your sphere?
This is even more prejudice than any obvious narrow-minded person could reveal.
And exactly this is why there is a need to not shut up if you don't fit into that category.
Point them people every time at this! Point them every time at it and emphasize "you take something for granted that isn't self-evident"!
You can do this the civilized way, no need for rage or big drama - as it leads to the serious question if it will have any effect at all if you bloat it with the same emotions that your counterpart used to give you a rebuke.
If they rage, make them crazy with diplomacy. Don't join their games. The psychological game is the effect that a brain consciously and/or unconsciously pursues.
Reacting on it will make you spin in an endless circle of blaming and shaming and bouncing those two back and forth. Which will lead to nothing in the end.
React with the left half of your brain and remain respectful, while trying to point at it tactfully "you can keep your life achievements, I haven't come to take anything from you".
Respect has the chance of impression anyone, while rage and precast judgments haven't.
No-one likes to be talked at in a loud voice! You know the verdict behind it anyway, otherwise someone wouldn't shout at you...
I wished more people knew a little about the psychological part of communication.
This could reduce the steady outrages and ranting about the other groups one is not part of.
And I mean "ranting" in the sense of "complaining about a group with automatic raise of the value of own self-assumed virtues". You know, narrow-minded narcissistic bullshit that thinks in "we're better than them simply because we're better than them"... Self-praise that looks at one's ego before real deeds. Preoccupation, partisanship... That kind of thing.
Not the "I try to soberly criticize you".
Psychology about communication would teach to keep all of these things in the back of your head about "don't think everyone in the world carries the same meaning of a word/phrase/idea around in its head". And this didn't apply only to text speech, it also was valid for verbal speech where you see all the gesticulation.
At least, it would be my guessing and maybe my silent hope that it would lead to people more trying to understand between the lines what a person exactly means instead of feeding one's ego about what one believes he meant and showering him with one's cultural and personal enemy images in a blow before he can say anything if he agrees or disagrees with the given title.
'Cause this is really a problem in all this shouting and holding reproaches against each other.
If everyone thinks he's right, well, then you know what comes out of it... They call it "civil war". People fighting against people. Ordinary people...