per Holly Math Nerd's request, I've compiled some thoughts on purposefully employing prosocial filters, and how filtering yourself does not equate to censoring yourself or being dishonest
When I was younger, I definitely did the "I'm not rude, I'm just being honest/not fake/authentic!" thing. But eventually I grew up and realized I was an asshole.
It drives me crazy how many doctors/therapists/clergy share recognizable details of the people they work with for Internet clout. For god's sake, get a group chat if you need to let this all out.
EVERYBODY does this to some extent. Just last night I said “y’all drive me crazy with xyz” (I honestly can’t remember) and Noah was like “why do you have to say it like that?”
I replied “well because if I said it differently there’d be nobody to blame.” And we both laughed.
I could’ve doubled down on the original statement which was technically true, but by acknowledging I was being an asshole I ended up not hurting his feelings. I didn’t WANT to hurt his feelings; I wanted to blow off steam about my own suffering servant complex.
As for the second part of your comment, yeah that’s terrible. If you can acknowledge that you’re chasing clout, you can either 1) choose to modify your behavior or 2) like you said, do it in a less damaging way.
Humour-the-universal-tension-solvent will save the world! And clever memes 😉 But before, we are in acute need to somehow boost the prevalence of critically endangered species called self-awareness.
I joke (slightly) but I sadly think that the doctors/therapists/clergy in the examples above go beyond clout chasing and genuinely think their clients on some level deserve to be recognized and called out in order to improve the general cosmic karma level of the world
I think we all collectively understand that a society with no accountability and redress whatsoever would be untenable...but we all disagree on where the line should be drawn.
"This is astute - I'd love to see some of your stuff on this." [Scrambles to construct oeuvre by 9 am]. Remind me not to make an astute comment on her blog!
Anyway, great observations as always. There is a zero-sum thinking in this rush to anticipate in your interlocuter the sins and failings of an entire society. Uncharitability, distrust and dismissal as ethical principle. But I would suggest that this, too, is a kind of prosocial filter - just that it's only with your ingroup, and what's being filtered is not the aggression but "what actual, real relationships require" (as you put it). It's still a performance, just as having too few boundaries becomes a performance.
You strike an admirable balance, though; this is something I noticed before, the discipline. I wonder if it might be related to your being a humorist; I've always had the impression that good humorists are especially skilled at being themselves without being....too much of themselves to too many.
Thanks for your measured thoughts, as always! Also you get 50 points for referring to me as a humorist.
You are very right that great humorists are actually excellent observers and discerners, skilled at the balance of revelation and withdrawal.
One of my favorite comedy specials of all time, which is only on DVD I think, is an improv performance by Dave Pasquesi and TJ Jagodowski. It’s a masterclass in the observation and performance of the quirks of personalities that can make life a wonderfully absurd comedy if you look at it the right way. There are very few Jokes.
I also think Steve Carrell is a remarkable comedian *because* he is also a remarkable dramatic actor.
Humorist! Humorist! (trade in my 150 points for a free ice cream). That DVD sounds awesome, thanks for the tip. And totally agree about Steve Carrell. I was thinking more about writing because of the online theme, but standup is a great example since you're even more exposed and getting feedback literally every few seconds, based on how well you walk that knife's edge between performance and authenticity.
But to address written humorists, a great and easy example is David Sedaris. I’m thinking particularly of an essay he wrote about his sister (who lives in my town, incidentally!) and her tender heart for animals. He told a really darkly hilarious story that, for her, was heartbreaking. But at the end of the story, he murmurs to her pet parrot, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry.”
I’m sure he got her permission to write about that (otherwise I doubt he’d have good relationships with his siblings!) but that last line reveals so much with so little: his self awareness, the understanding that he didn’t understand her pain, and the wish to be the kind of person she needed, who is not the person he was being. Or maybe he’s just an asshole.
As always, Erin, this is such a well put-together piece. I have so many thoughts about it. I have been on the internet a long time and probably there are a lot of people who feel that they know me intimately, whereas I may or may not know them. It's a bit of a strange feeling. I, like you, do choose what to share carefully. I have absolutely no problem talking about awkward things like my chin hair or my period, but I won't talk about the details of my marriage or anything sensitive about my children. Which is why I found that memoir so shocking (thanks for the mention!). I mean, your feelings are your feelings, but my goodness. Imagine. Imagine being one of those children. I am on IG and FB and I post photos of my sons and husband there, and since they also post photos of themselves, that's fine by me. But sometimes I will get a message "I just saw your son at *place he works at*" and that does feel strange. Typically, though, the people on my feeds are my friends...but my IG is open so anyone could see.
I think that the persona that I portray in my blog is my actual persona. I don't think anyone would be surprised by my personality, meeting me. But like you, I am careful about what I say about certain topics.
Regarding the list of things that we see in the Echo Chamber, I have an anecdote. My aunt passed away early this year. She was a very important woman in my life and had an immense positive influence on me. In terms of adults in my life, she was probably the only person who I thought accepted me wholeheartedly, without criticism. Also, she and I could not have been farther apart, politically. And I'm not really that far to any one side! When she passed I really had to think about people who have different views than mine, and how I feel about that, and ultimately what kind of a person I want to be - and I want to be one who is open and accepting EVEN when people have wildly different viewpoints from mine. Even when those viewpoints feel problematic. I said this to a friend of mine who immediately dismissed my grief and made me feel like she thought it was good my aunt died. It changed our relationship. I guess what I'm saying is that this post made me feel very seen it resonated, and thank you for writing it.
"It’s a violation of the boundaries of her kids, as well as a likely hurtful account of a now-dead man’s flaws for his children and family to read, not all that long after his sudden and traumatic passing." - 100%, Erin, 100%.
I feel that you’re a kindred soul! I’m also pretty much an open book about a lot of myself: I don’t embarrass easily. But other people DO and that is OK. Example: I may not be embarrassed to talk about my birth control methods with anyone who asked, but I wouldn’t do so in front of my kids because it would embarrass THEM. (I’m hoping this will be an asset for my career in healthcare; I think it might be really helpful to have a nurse who understands that certain health issues are embarrassing or sensitive for the patient, but who can also reassure patients that what they’re going through is on the spectrum of normal. Nothing worse than having a vulnerable physical moment in the presence of a stranger and worrying that the doctor/nurse secretly thinks you’re gross,)
I won’t lie: 2020 was a tough year for political division in my corner of the world. I was definitely confused and even dismayed by the choices some friends and family made. But I didn’t cut anyone out of my life. I just didn’t talk with them about things that were big disagreements. And now so many of those things don’t matter at all anymore. PLUS, *I* have more perspective on why those people would make the political choices they made. And the reason was never “they’re bad humans.”
My god, Erin, this is just full of brilliant sentences. ”There is no news cycle, which is inevitably based on the rhythms of day and night, differentiation between Work Time and Home Time, the capabilities of real humans in real space using real tools of production.
As also: “your performance will become so total that there is no you behind the mask. The internet loves a messy queen, but it’s an unhealthy, vampiric love.”
I yearn for a world where we don't have to hide so much of ourselves, where the human race can move a bit beyond shaming - especially for things that aren't really shameful at all - just differences of opinion.
Of course we all want to be known. Intimacy is wonderful and nourishing. But, we do have to set healthy boundaries and omit things that would leave us vulnerable. And we have to calibrate this with regard to context. Most friendships are built in layers.
My business relationships are a perfect example. They don't need to know the "all of me" for an effective transaction to occur; for value to be exchanged.
That said, as a curious cat, I often wonder what the human race would look like if we did know each other more intimately. We make so many assumptions and often make choices based on what we think we know about others, and then end up being wrong. So, there is a downside to not knowing. But, as long as we are shaming culture, I think privacy is important to our mental health. We have to have spaces where we can safely vent and be real and a bit raw without being censured. At least until we become more spiritually mature.
Follow-on thought: I think it's plausible that pre-social, many of us went through life in parochial bubbles and believed that most people were like ourselves. The internet has blown the lid off of that fiction. I think much of the polarization we are experiencing is actually shock when people find out how many others don't agree with them. Social media mobbing may stem (in part, at least) from a hamfisted attempt to restore a sort of "normal" to offset this shock.
Thank you for this; a lot of fodder for thought here. I talked to my therapist not that long ago about this question of how "authentic," "open," etc., I or anyone else *should* be online, and how much that's even possible for someone like me who's still working on overcoming the fragmentation of a terrible childhood. He pointed out that very few people even know their spouses and children as well as they think, which is why his office is often filled with people dealing with having discovered a terrible secret that shouldn't have been secret. If writing is helpful to me, and he agreed that it is, then all I can do is navigate these murky waters the best I can, and be willing to change my mind in public with the same intensity that I stated it. Your discussion of consciously choosing filters here, recognizing that we're all filtering anyway, is a helpful framing. Most of us make most of our decisions based on unconscious heuristics, it seems to me, and taking the time to try to consciously choose them instead of continuing that practice, seems like a good way to assume more responsibility for shaping our own individual corners of the internet. If enough people clean up, improve, etc., their own corners, who knows? After awhile we might have an internet that's more than a toxic hellpit! (Imagine....)
On the "commodification" question -- I struggled with this for a long time, and I see this differently, 18 months into a career and no longer being poor. I genuinely *enjoy* supporting creators of content that helps, enlightens, entertains, or blesses me. It makes me happy and makes me feel better about being alive, that I'm helping people on missions I believe in. And I decide what gets paywalled with one heuristic -- if I'm saying what I believe to be true about an issue of great importance, I don't paywall it. So I established a standing policy that nobody ever will miss any of my content for lack of funds; just ask and you can get behind the paywall for free. No need for explanations and I don't ask questions or require proof of income or anything like that. I hope that balance-striking means that I offer people the chance to experience the same joy I get from supporting creators, without any of the downsides.
Thanks again; I will be referencing this post in an issue later this week.
Oh!! BUT ALSO (I forgot about this because I don’t currently work outside the home) the “bring your whole self to work” phenomenon, which often coincides with social justice at the office initiatives, I find confusing and inappropriate. It’s a massive overreach by companies and corporations who are buying your time and skills, not your personal life. Which leads also to the confusing way we treat celebrities who actually have specific skills, like athletes: their opinions and politics are scrutinized, when it’s kind of like…this person smashes into other men at full speed for a living. Why does it matter who he voted for or what his stance is on pride?
Thanks so much Holly, for this comment and the things you share in your own writing.
There’s a tricky balance to being a creative and getting paid for it, which you’ve outlined here. I’m actually a fan of things like substack and patreon so that individuals CAN choose to support directly the creatives who bring value to their lives. In this particular post, I was thinking almost exclusively of social media personalities who rely heavily on *advertisers* for their income. Certainly many of them choose their advertising partnerships and sponsorships with care, which I appreciate; that’s not true of many more, and I think that’s often where the dissonance and breakdowns arise.
I love this: “, look anywhere online and you’ll find people advising you to behave and think in ways that are antithetical to what actual, real relationships require: give and take, personal sacrifice and reciprocation, benefit of the doubt and reasonable boundaries.”
I mean sometimes they may be right, but there’s never any qualifiers. Like “it’s ok to not text someone back…who is passive aggressively baiting you.” “I don’t have to answer your questions…if your questions are clearly willfully misunderstanding my position.” Etc.
Yeah. And in addition to the message-without-qualifiers, there’s always the sassy self-absorbed way the message is delivered, like “I don’t owe you anything.” Fine and no one owes you anything either. Let’s see how far we get with that approach.
I slept over your brilliantly insightful summarising, and a trivial parallel bounced to mind: we all can easily recall a baker's dozen of meat-space cases where we didn’t say smth and were very glad afterwards we didn’t. Reasons may vary from habitually applied filters, our better nature intervening, to plain circumstantial, like the conversation veering off to another topic.
See Something, Say Something® is a lousy guide in human relations. The turbocharged impulsiveness of online exchanges paves the way for society of scandal.
Erin, this was such a powerful and convincing statement of online ethics. I expected nothing less of you, but it was a pleasure to read anyway. Being prosocial online is not fake or lying--it’s just trying to act with basic courtesy and consideration.
To your list I would add a couple of principles I try to follow, although I’m by no means perfect:
1. I never share a story, picture, or quote from someone unless I have first gotten permission. This goes especially for my kids.
2. I use my real name online. This is a good mechanism for forcing me to stay civil.
3. In public forums, I don’t post anything before I think through it first. I have been wrong once or twice 😉 (for example, I shared a story about the Covington kids before the full story emerged), and when that happens, I write a post apologizing--and I try to learn from my mistakes.
Your ethical and thoughtful behavior online is one of the reasons I value your posts so much. We can control how we act online, even with strangers who make us mad! You are showing us how, and I am grateful.
Since I've found myself re-reading this post of yours yet again I figured I should take the time to properly thank you for writing it in the first place :)
I've been told many times recently (always in a positive manner, to my face) that I'm a very open person and people seem to genuinely enjoy speaking with me online or offline as much as I likewise enjoy conversing with them. I know from hardwon personal IRL experiences however that in malevolent company openness can easily lead to costly personal troubles and even actual danger.
It's both helpful and encouraging to hear a candid take on the inherent weirdness of interacting AND putting personal writing online from someone who's been at it regularly for a while. While it's easy to see how the internet can exponentially scale that abuse up (The internet "loves'' a messy queen indeed.) it can be harder to see how to effectively avoid it "here". Thanks again!
(Oh and btw Mr. V thinks the life-size model of an actual kidney’s vasculature is very cool.) Be well!
When I was younger, I definitely did the "I'm not rude, I'm just being honest/not fake/authentic!" thing. But eventually I grew up and realized I was an asshole.
It drives me crazy how many doctors/therapists/clergy share recognizable details of the people they work with for Internet clout. For god's sake, get a group chat if you need to let this all out.
EVERYBODY does this to some extent. Just last night I said “y’all drive me crazy with xyz” (I honestly can’t remember) and Noah was like “why do you have to say it like that?”
I replied “well because if I said it differently there’d be nobody to blame.” And we both laughed.
I could’ve doubled down on the original statement which was technically true, but by acknowledging I was being an asshole I ended up not hurting his feelings. I didn’t WANT to hurt his feelings; I wanted to blow off steam about my own suffering servant complex.
As for the second part of your comment, yeah that’s terrible. If you can acknowledge that you’re chasing clout, you can either 1) choose to modify your behavior or 2) like you said, do it in a less damaging way.
Humour-the-universal-tension-solvent will save the world! And clever memes 😉 But before, we are in acute need to somehow boost the prevalence of critically endangered species called self-awareness.
The secret to getting away with that is to only be rude to people who are ruder than you
Great example of situational recalibration! Lol
I joke (slightly) but I sadly think that the doctors/therapists/clergy in the examples above go beyond clout chasing and genuinely think their clients on some level deserve to be recognized and called out in order to improve the general cosmic karma level of the world
I think we all collectively understand that a society with no accountability and redress whatsoever would be untenable...but we all disagree on where the line should be drawn.
Very good point.
"This is astute - I'd love to see some of your stuff on this." [Scrambles to construct oeuvre by 9 am]. Remind me not to make an astute comment on her blog!
Anyway, great observations as always. There is a zero-sum thinking in this rush to anticipate in your interlocuter the sins and failings of an entire society. Uncharitability, distrust and dismissal as ethical principle. But I would suggest that this, too, is a kind of prosocial filter - just that it's only with your ingroup, and what's being filtered is not the aggression but "what actual, real relationships require" (as you put it). It's still a performance, just as having too few boundaries becomes a performance.
You strike an admirable balance, though; this is something I noticed before, the discipline. I wonder if it might be related to your being a humorist; I've always had the impression that good humorists are especially skilled at being themselves without being....too much of themselves to too many.
Thanks for your measured thoughts, as always! Also you get 50 points for referring to me as a humorist.
You are very right that great humorists are actually excellent observers and discerners, skilled at the balance of revelation and withdrawal.
One of my favorite comedy specials of all time, which is only on DVD I think, is an improv performance by Dave Pasquesi and TJ Jagodowski. It’s a masterclass in the observation and performance of the quirks of personalities that can make life a wonderfully absurd comedy if you look at it the right way. There are very few Jokes.
I also think Steve Carrell is a remarkable comedian *because* he is also a remarkable dramatic actor.
Humorist! Humorist! (trade in my 150 points for a free ice cream). That DVD sounds awesome, thanks for the tip. And totally agree about Steve Carrell. I was thinking more about writing because of the online theme, but standup is a great example since you're even more exposed and getting feedback literally every few seconds, based on how well you walk that knife's edge between performance and authenticity.
Hahaha you’re gaming the points system.
But to address written humorists, a great and easy example is David Sedaris. I’m thinking particularly of an essay he wrote about his sister (who lives in my town, incidentally!) and her tender heart for animals. He told a really darkly hilarious story that, for her, was heartbreaking. But at the end of the story, he murmurs to her pet parrot, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry.”
I’m sure he got her permission to write about that (otherwise I doubt he’d have good relationships with his siblings!) but that last line reveals so much with so little: his self awareness, the understanding that he didn’t understand her pain, and the wish to be the kind of person she needed, who is not the person he was being. Or maybe he’s just an asshole.
It’s called “Repeat After Me” btw.
💬 Hahaha you’re gaming the points system.
It’s always thus: one optimises for what can be measured. Just some are quicker than others 😇
Good ol’ Goodhart's Law never tires to shine: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
As always, Erin, this is such a well put-together piece. I have so many thoughts about it. I have been on the internet a long time and probably there are a lot of people who feel that they know me intimately, whereas I may or may not know them. It's a bit of a strange feeling. I, like you, do choose what to share carefully. I have absolutely no problem talking about awkward things like my chin hair or my period, but I won't talk about the details of my marriage or anything sensitive about my children. Which is why I found that memoir so shocking (thanks for the mention!). I mean, your feelings are your feelings, but my goodness. Imagine. Imagine being one of those children. I am on IG and FB and I post photos of my sons and husband there, and since they also post photos of themselves, that's fine by me. But sometimes I will get a message "I just saw your son at *place he works at*" and that does feel strange. Typically, though, the people on my feeds are my friends...but my IG is open so anyone could see.
I think that the persona that I portray in my blog is my actual persona. I don't think anyone would be surprised by my personality, meeting me. But like you, I am careful about what I say about certain topics.
Regarding the list of things that we see in the Echo Chamber, I have an anecdote. My aunt passed away early this year. She was a very important woman in my life and had an immense positive influence on me. In terms of adults in my life, she was probably the only person who I thought accepted me wholeheartedly, without criticism. Also, she and I could not have been farther apart, politically. And I'm not really that far to any one side! When she passed I really had to think about people who have different views than mine, and how I feel about that, and ultimately what kind of a person I want to be - and I want to be one who is open and accepting EVEN when people have wildly different viewpoints from mine. Even when those viewpoints feel problematic. I said this to a friend of mine who immediately dismissed my grief and made me feel like she thought it was good my aunt died. It changed our relationship. I guess what I'm saying is that this post made me feel very seen it resonated, and thank you for writing it.
"It’s a violation of the boundaries of her kids, as well as a likely hurtful account of a now-dead man’s flaws for his children and family to read, not all that long after his sudden and traumatic passing." - 100%, Erin, 100%.
I feel that you’re a kindred soul! I’m also pretty much an open book about a lot of myself: I don’t embarrass easily. But other people DO and that is OK. Example: I may not be embarrassed to talk about my birth control methods with anyone who asked, but I wouldn’t do so in front of my kids because it would embarrass THEM. (I’m hoping this will be an asset for my career in healthcare; I think it might be really helpful to have a nurse who understands that certain health issues are embarrassing or sensitive for the patient, but who can also reassure patients that what they’re going through is on the spectrum of normal. Nothing worse than having a vulnerable physical moment in the presence of a stranger and worrying that the doctor/nurse secretly thinks you’re gross,)
I won’t lie: 2020 was a tough year for political division in my corner of the world. I was definitely confused and even dismayed by the choices some friends and family made. But I didn’t cut anyone out of my life. I just didn’t talk with them about things that were big disagreements. And now so many of those things don’t matter at all anymore. PLUS, *I* have more perspective on why those people would make the political choices they made. And the reason was never “they’re bad humans.”
My god, Erin, this is just full of brilliant sentences. ”There is no news cycle, which is inevitably based on the rhythms of day and night, differentiation between Work Time and Home Time, the capabilities of real humans in real space using real tools of production.
On the internet, it’s always Now”
*bows graciously*
As also: “your performance will become so total that there is no you behind the mask. The internet loves a messy queen, but it’s an unhealthy, vampiric love.”
Definitely one of her better pieces. My brain was binging and bonging. ;-)
The advice given here seems very nuanced, compassionate, and non-judgmental, which is why I suspect most people will ignore it
😂😂😂
Loved this. Thanks for writing it with such compassion and insight. Oddly enough, I am reading this book right now that is somewhat related: https://www.amazon.com/Private-Truths-Public-Lies-Falsification/dp/0674707583 (Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification).
I yearn for a world where we don't have to hide so much of ourselves, where the human race can move a bit beyond shaming - especially for things that aren't really shameful at all - just differences of opinion.
Of course we all want to be known. Intimacy is wonderful and nourishing. But, we do have to set healthy boundaries and omit things that would leave us vulnerable. And we have to calibrate this with regard to context. Most friendships are built in layers.
My business relationships are a perfect example. They don't need to know the "all of me" for an effective transaction to occur; for value to be exchanged.
That said, as a curious cat, I often wonder what the human race would look like if we did know each other more intimately. We make so many assumptions and often make choices based on what we think we know about others, and then end up being wrong. So, there is a downside to not knowing. But, as long as we are shaming culture, I think privacy is important to our mental health. We have to have spaces where we can safely vent and be real and a bit raw without being censured. At least until we become more spiritually mature.
Follow-on thought: I think it's plausible that pre-social, many of us went through life in parochial bubbles and believed that most people were like ourselves. The internet has blown the lid off of that fiction. I think much of the polarization we are experiencing is actually shock when people find out how many others don't agree with them. Social media mobbing may stem (in part, at least) from a hamfisted attempt to restore a sort of "normal" to offset this shock.
Great observation about shock of revelation. I'll check out that book!
Thank you for this; a lot of fodder for thought here. I talked to my therapist not that long ago about this question of how "authentic," "open," etc., I or anyone else *should* be online, and how much that's even possible for someone like me who's still working on overcoming the fragmentation of a terrible childhood. He pointed out that very few people even know their spouses and children as well as they think, which is why his office is often filled with people dealing with having discovered a terrible secret that shouldn't have been secret. If writing is helpful to me, and he agreed that it is, then all I can do is navigate these murky waters the best I can, and be willing to change my mind in public with the same intensity that I stated it. Your discussion of consciously choosing filters here, recognizing that we're all filtering anyway, is a helpful framing. Most of us make most of our decisions based on unconscious heuristics, it seems to me, and taking the time to try to consciously choose them instead of continuing that practice, seems like a good way to assume more responsibility for shaping our own individual corners of the internet. If enough people clean up, improve, etc., their own corners, who knows? After awhile we might have an internet that's more than a toxic hellpit! (Imagine....)
On the "commodification" question -- I struggled with this for a long time, and I see this differently, 18 months into a career and no longer being poor. I genuinely *enjoy* supporting creators of content that helps, enlightens, entertains, or blesses me. It makes me happy and makes me feel better about being alive, that I'm helping people on missions I believe in. And I decide what gets paywalled with one heuristic -- if I'm saying what I believe to be true about an issue of great importance, I don't paywall it. So I established a standing policy that nobody ever will miss any of my content for lack of funds; just ask and you can get behind the paywall for free. No need for explanations and I don't ask questions or require proof of income or anything like that. I hope that balance-striking means that I offer people the chance to experience the same joy I get from supporting creators, without any of the downsides.
Thanks again; I will be referencing this post in an issue later this week.
Oh!! BUT ALSO (I forgot about this because I don’t currently work outside the home) the “bring your whole self to work” phenomenon, which often coincides with social justice at the office initiatives, I find confusing and inappropriate. It’s a massive overreach by companies and corporations who are buying your time and skills, not your personal life. Which leads also to the confusing way we treat celebrities who actually have specific skills, like athletes: their opinions and politics are scrutinized, when it’s kind of like…this person smashes into other men at full speed for a living. Why does it matter who he voted for or what his stance is on pride?
I could not agree more with you on this!
Thanks so much Holly, for this comment and the things you share in your own writing.
There’s a tricky balance to being a creative and getting paid for it, which you’ve outlined here. I’m actually a fan of things like substack and patreon so that individuals CAN choose to support directly the creatives who bring value to their lives. In this particular post, I was thinking almost exclusively of social media personalities who rely heavily on *advertisers* for their income. Certainly many of them choose their advertising partnerships and sponsorships with care, which I appreciate; that’s not true of many more, and I think that’s often where the dissonance and breakdowns arise.
Very thoughtful stuff!
I love this: “, look anywhere online and you’ll find people advising you to behave and think in ways that are antithetical to what actual, real relationships require: give and take, personal sacrifice and reciprocation, benefit of the doubt and reasonable boundaries.”
So much truth.
I mean sometimes they may be right, but there’s never any qualifiers. Like “it’s ok to not text someone back…who is passive aggressively baiting you.” “I don’t have to answer your questions…if your questions are clearly willfully misunderstanding my position.” Etc.
Yeah. And in addition to the message-without-qualifiers, there’s always the sassy self-absorbed way the message is delivered, like “I don’t owe you anything.” Fine and no one owes you anything either. Let’s see how far we get with that approach.
I slept over your brilliantly insightful summarising, and a trivial parallel bounced to mind: we all can easily recall a baker's dozen of meat-space cases where we didn’t say smth and were very glad afterwards we didn’t. Reasons may vary from habitually applied filters, our better nature intervening, to plain circumstantial, like the conversation veering off to another topic.
See Something, Say Something® is a lousy guide in human relations. The turbocharged impulsiveness of online exchanges paves the way for society of scandal.
You’re absolutely right. And it’s easier to toss off something rude or hurtful online and forget about it, because we’re not seeing the aftermath.
So much wisdom all in one place 🙇 🙇 🙇
That's why I write: to have a place to put all the wisdom that oozes out of my soul.
Erin, this was such a powerful and convincing statement of online ethics. I expected nothing less of you, but it was a pleasure to read anyway. Being prosocial online is not fake or lying--it’s just trying to act with basic courtesy and consideration.
To your list I would add a couple of principles I try to follow, although I’m by no means perfect:
1. I never share a story, picture, or quote from someone unless I have first gotten permission. This goes especially for my kids.
2. I use my real name online. This is a good mechanism for forcing me to stay civil.
3. In public forums, I don’t post anything before I think through it first. I have been wrong once or twice 😉 (for example, I shared a story about the Covington kids before the full story emerged), and when that happens, I write a post apologizing--and I try to learn from my mistakes.
Your ethical and thoughtful behavior online is one of the reasons I value your posts so much. We can control how we act online, even with strangers who make us mad! You are showing us how, and I am grateful.
P.S. I liked the cameo of your ghost-manicure!
Since I've found myself re-reading this post of yours yet again I figured I should take the time to properly thank you for writing it in the first place :)
I've been told many times recently (always in a positive manner, to my face) that I'm a very open person and people seem to genuinely enjoy speaking with me online or offline as much as I likewise enjoy conversing with them. I know from hardwon personal IRL experiences however that in malevolent company openness can easily lead to costly personal troubles and even actual danger.
It's both helpful and encouraging to hear a candid take on the inherent weirdness of interacting AND putting personal writing online from someone who's been at it regularly for a while. While it's easy to see how the internet can exponentially scale that abuse up (The internet "loves'' a messy queen indeed.) it can be harder to see how to effectively avoid it "here". Thanks again!
(Oh and btw Mr. V thinks the life-size model of an actual kidney’s vasculature is very cool.) Be well!