![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
impatience of Job
Aug. 20th, 2012 11:31 pmI think I've confirmed what my superpower is. It's the ability to write things that look perfectly clear to me, but which cloud readers' minds and make them think I've written something quite different. And since what they think I wrote, as opposed to what I actually did write, is quite ridiculous, they then round and abuse me for it. And no number of repetitions or explanations will convince them that I believe what I said I believe, and not what they think I believe. That a sensible explanation might be more plausible than a ridiculous one does not seem to enter their minds, at least not if the writer is me.
This has happened in my own LJ comments section, as well as on bulletin boards elsewhere. I've even had it in reviews of my academic writings.
A typical example might be that I say that some people hold a view, and am taken as saying that this view is universal, and what's more unquestionably right. Or that some action is inadvisable in certain tactical circumstances, which is taken as saying that it should never be done, and is loathsome unto my sight.
Further wrinkle 1: Occasionally they do read and understand my explanations and elaborations. But since, though these are consistent with what I wrote originally, they're not consistent with what the reader imagined I wrote, I am then accused of being shifty with definitions, playing "No True Scotsman," etc.
Further wrinkle 2: If there is a third-party moderator for this forum, then any grumpiness I show in response to these misreadings, even if it's only a sigh of exasperation, will bring from the moderator a public chiding, of a kind rarely if ever administered in other people's arguments. Whereas any rudeness addressed to me, even if it goes so far as a physical threat, brings no public comment from the authorities.
Rarely, the shoe is on the other foot. I respond to something somebody wrote, and they deny that they hold any such view. In that case, I always promptly quote their words that said it. (This never brings a response.) But nobody insisting I believe something, after I've said I don't hold those views, ever attempts to rebut by quoting me saying it.
This has happened in my own LJ comments section, as well as on bulletin boards elsewhere. I've even had it in reviews of my academic writings.
A typical example might be that I say that some people hold a view, and am taken as saying that this view is universal, and what's more unquestionably right. Or that some action is inadvisable in certain tactical circumstances, which is taken as saying that it should never be done, and is loathsome unto my sight.
Further wrinkle 1: Occasionally they do read and understand my explanations and elaborations. But since, though these are consistent with what I wrote originally, they're not consistent with what the reader imagined I wrote, I am then accused of being shifty with definitions, playing "No True Scotsman," etc.
Further wrinkle 2: If there is a third-party moderator for this forum, then any grumpiness I show in response to these misreadings, even if it's only a sigh of exasperation, will bring from the moderator a public chiding, of a kind rarely if ever administered in other people's arguments. Whereas any rudeness addressed to me, even if it goes so far as a physical threat, brings no public comment from the authorities.
Rarely, the shoe is on the other foot. I respond to something somebody wrote, and they deny that they hold any such view. In that case, I always promptly quote their words that said it. (This never brings a response.) But nobody insisting I believe something, after I've said I don't hold those views, ever attempts to rebut by quoting me saying it.
