#while disregarding anyone else's perspective and emotions based on that perspective. hm

[gothhabiba]

i think a lot of times tone gets misinterpreted as pointed/angry/accusatory online due to the combative nature of social media culture where accusations are used as clickbait almost, so people who are used to things like twitter replies or tiktok comments can't read a neutral explanation without seeing the 800 ways this could, in other contexts, be used to attack them for something that would actually be a simple "oh, i misunderstood, my b, you're right" in normal social contexts. i don't mean that as an excuse for this behavior, i think approaching things in good faith should be more of a norm INCLUDING when someone is calling you out (for lack of a better term), i guess i just was curious if you had Thoughts on this phenomenon or disagree or anything. i always find how you view things and interesting and you've helped change my mind by pointing out things i hadn't thought of, and ive been thinking about this for a while when i saw what happened on the ableism post

I think you're right, & I also think part of the problem is something that's common to internet and physical-space interactions—namely, people attaching large parts of their self-concept to being a 'good' person who is never racist, ableist, homophobic, misogynist &c.

such that if you say "hey, maybe you weren't aware but this thing you said is actually ableist" or "oh, that idea actually has a lot of racist implications in how it's deployed historically," what you are saying is "you are an ableist / you are a racist and you are a bad person."

they see it, not just as something they said, but as something they are. they can't just say "oh, yeah, I said something offensive, that's not consistent with who I want to be, so I apologise and will examine my ideas." in their minds there are people who are racist, who always say racist things, and people who are not racist, who are incapable of saying racist things. they have to fight against anyone who tries to move them from the second to the first category.

the only way they can deny being the bad thing, and assert that they are not a bad person, is to deny that they said anything offensive. your asserting that they said something offensive cannot just be something that they didn't know about or something that they need to think about more—they interpret it as an attack on their very personhood.

and they will consider their own personhood (their perspective, what they meant when they said this thing, everything in their lives leading up to them saying this thing) but will not consider your's (your perspective, how you understood this thing and why, your life leading up to hearing this thing that caused you to believe it was offensive). it's a reaction of centring oneself and failing to consider anyone else's perspective that's, seemingly contradictorily, borne of a deep sense of guilt, as well as a black-and-white perspective on the world.

this is why you get constructions such as "racism is bad, but it's just as bad to be falsely accused of being a racist."

#you can see this in that thread--where this person is deeply morally offended at my accusing them of believing something they #think they don't believe #to the extent that they refuse to allow me to recontextualise the conversation to explain why I took it the way I did #and admit that yes that's what it sounds like they're saying #they are considering their *right* to be understood in their intentions and full personhood #while disregarding anyone else's perspective and emotions based on that perspective. hm