Li: ritual, propriety, etiquette. Hsiao: love within the family (parents for children and children for parents. Yi: righteousness--the noblest way to act in a situation. Xin: honesty and trustworthiness. Jen: benevolence, humaneness towards others. Chung: loyalty to the state and authority. --Confucius (Kong Fuzi)

All articles appear in reverse chronological order [newest first].

Post from FaceBook may not be viewable if not signed into FaceBook.
I believe the past is relevant, sometimes more than others of course. In most cases we are seeing history being repeated, so it is most relevant.

Sunday, June 7, 2020

CLARITY: Trolling or discussion

Are you sure your meme(graphic) or joke makes a specific point? Your point? Can your meme be interpreted in several different ways? Some of which could reflect negatively on you. Does the meme you posted contain inaccuracy and misinformation, reflecting negatively on whatever point you were trying to make? 


Clarifying a point:

Many of us use analogies, jokes, or memes to make a point as a form of shorthand. Its natural and can be useful, but what if someone doesn't get the joke, or doesn't think the analogy is relevant or finds a part of the meme offensive? It is important to remember that communication is a two-way streak that what we say isn't always what someone hears, verbally, or in writing. Who's at fault the speaker or the person listening? Both could be at fault. Some people are not as clear as they think when they express themselves, and some are just not good listeners. 


EXAMPLE: It is like the common husband-wife argument: 

  • Husband: Are you mad at me? 
  • Wife: (Silence)
  • Husband: Tell me what I did so I can fix it.
  • Wife: You know What you did! I shouldn't have to tell you.

Does he, or at least does he always? Regardless of who's at fault in this exchange, there are two possible outcomes here. The wife has shutdown the argument to the relief of the husband, and the issue at hand will be a festering boil that will eventually erupt in the future. Or the wife will reveal what is wrong, and the husband will manage to explain or rectify the issue.

Right?


No, wrong.

My example could be taken in several different ways, not just two. Anything from demonstrating I'm a misogynistic idiot to I'm an observant and thoughtful sage. Some would surely find more than two possible outcomes. Others would take from this that my wife is a closed book or that I must have been a terrible husband, etc.

I dug myself a hole with a bad example: Do I dig myself out, or do I double-down on my error claiming righteous indignation.


Digging myself out of a hole:

Maybe I shouldn't have to explain it, but if my position was worth making, why wouldn't I want to clarify it. Yes, you might not 'get it,' you might not accept it, and we may never agree, but is my purpose discussion or "Trolling?"

No comments:

Search This Blog