WTF?
Oh dear. That’s never a happy start and from there it actually gets rude. I’m checking in on a group chat and now I’m sorry that I did. Before gently closing it, I involuntarily get the gist of the post (it’s political) but I don’t learn the details of exactly who has done what unforgivable thing. At this point, as someone once said, does it really matter?
No. In this case at least, it doesn’t.
It doesn’t matter to the group, whose purpose has nothing to do with politics.
It doesn’t matter to me, with my notable lack of leverage on politics, foreign or domestic.
It must matter to the person who posted it but only because they have chosen to let it matter. They have chosen to be outraged, and that’s OK. You do you, yeah? Yeah. But they did something else: They chose to splash that outrage on others.
As the politicians say, let me be clear. I sometimes read political commentary and sometimes it is outraged. Sometimes it is even profane. If I get splashed, well, I chose to go to the pool.
But elsewhere? Right here, for example, in a non-political group chat with diverse members, not very well-known to each other? No.
This here is a no-splash zone. And this here is a good reminder to me: Before I wave my hands or words about in outrage, I too should check whether anyone I might splash has chosen to be here for that purpose. Am I, in fact, at the pool?
Well said!!
Jim R – 🙂
Or, as one of my authors said long ago, “Not in my house, you don’t!”
Jim T – 🙂 Yes, that works, too.
Maybe that’s why I loathe group chats, and especially group text messages.
Tom
Tom – Well, it could be. It’s easy to forget the norms that govern most face-to-face interaction, and there’s not much opportunity to get feedback at an interim stage so it’s easy to go too far before you realize it.
It’s not quite the same but this post made me think of a time long, long ago when my son was, I don’t know, three-ish – when do children start to suspect that there are monsters in their closet? In any case, it was the first inkling that he had that thought, one night as I was ‘putting’ him to bed, when he asked me to stay because he was afraid of a monster coming out of his closet. I have no idea what made me react as I did, as I’d had no thought of the situation beforehand. Maybe it was because I was tired and just wanted to start that small fragment of my day without children. Anyway, I said, “Oh no, there are no monsters in this house. I’m in charge here and they are just not allowed.” Kissed him good night and left. There were never any more mentions of monsters in the closet. It was a no-monster zone.
Marion – That’s a great story. IMO, sometimes kids need us to do an “authority over-ride”, whether that’s of their behaviour or their fears. A no-monster zone is an excellent thing.
I have noticed on Facebook and in some chat rooms that people treat their computers as if they were thinking aloud to a room with no one in it. This is the right half of the brain disclosing itself to the left half of the brain without social controls built gradually into left-brain dominance. The anonymity or social distance provided by “nicknames” or “avatars” uncorks the subconscious (right-brain).
Another factor seems to be the American demand on their entertainers, politicians, and some other prominent citizens to bare all and disclose all. They bring a sense of entitlement to this pursuit of knowledge, which some celebrities capitalize on. It becomes difficult to find what I would consider an appropriate sense of privacy.
Laurna – It seems to me that some actors don’t play the “expose all” game (living outside Hollywood, for example, and not doing much promotion of their movies) but it may be that this is a perq limited to those who have already achieved some fame and/or box office clout. Others pretty clearly use the exposure to increase their celebrity for whatever benefit.