I just think — and believe I've observed — that people have a very hard time discerning between "I think you're incredibly wrong" and "I think you're arguing in bad faith."
-
Abuse is a social phenomenon, it exists as a relation across a socially-defined space and its presentation shifts constantly over time. What does it mean for an action to be inherently abusive? How can that be epistemologically grounded?
If you and I disagree about what constitutes abuse, is it my network that sets the standard, or yours?
-
-
While you did switch to his perspective on the issue, you also limited the available options to just two. And probably not options that myk would have gone with to begin with. This is the "none can be trusted with this responsibility"-road. It also leads to no change.
-
(and I somehow switched to cynical spectator / commenter mode. doesn't lead to anything beyond entertainment and maybe self-delusion about teaching the two of you something of value either)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s relational. You and I each have our own definitions, and for our networks to interact we need to negotiate terms. It’s situational. So let’s focus on getting really good at that part, with clear rules and consequences for abuse, right?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.