2. This is a good point. I tend to think if someone is responding to a specific person, then they should be mindful of how they're responding to that person, not making a comment meant for other people. But there are plenty of other situations and types of writing where purpose is less clear, and less "let's talk civilly about this!" is necessary or even wanted.
3. That sounds like a really good teaching exercise, actually. You say that as if it was almost a spontaneous learning experience, but it's a brilliant way to teach about points of view and what the audience brings to a work!
I guess the difference lies between expressing anger and making it personal. Kind of a "hate the sin not the sinner" sort of thing. And it's really hard to know sometimes what issues are so important to a person that they WILL take it personally even when it's not meant personally, and that can cause a lot of painful misunderstanding in and of itself. Like, when people are so anti-gun they insinuate that gun owners are accessories to murder, and I'm like, "Dude, you're talking about my HUSBAND" and they were just talking policy, or on the other side of the political spectrum, when people say something idiotic about gay marriage and I get furious for the sake of yours-and-Sam's union. It's tricky to discuss non-personal policies when, on an individual basis, they ARE personal!
(I actually have been known to go back and apologize to random strangers on the Internet when I realized what I'd said had come out wrong or wasn't taken how I meant! But that sure isn't always practical).
It did NOT come out awful; I really do understand the concept so much better now, and I realize it is just that tricky line between personal and theoretical, and that some people are more sensitive to certain things than others, and sometimes, well, people DO use well-meaning ideas in not-so-enlightened ways. Like the whole Magneto thing-- Magneto isn't a villain because his IDEALS are wrong, his ideals are actually quite right; he's a villain because of how he treats or disregards the innocent bystanders-- he's prioritized his ideals over people.
Re: Possibly Useless Ramblings Part 2
3. That sounds like a really good teaching exercise, actually. You say that as if it was almost a spontaneous learning experience, but it's a brilliant way to teach about points of view and what the audience brings to a work!
I guess the difference lies between expressing anger and making it personal. Kind of a "hate the sin not the sinner" sort of thing. And it's really hard to know sometimes what issues are so important to a person that they WILL take it personally even when it's not meant personally, and that can cause a lot of painful misunderstanding in and of itself. Like, when people are so anti-gun they insinuate that gun owners are accessories to murder, and I'm like, "Dude, you're talking about my HUSBAND" and they were just talking policy, or on the other side of the political spectrum, when people say something idiotic about gay marriage and I get furious for the sake of yours-and-Sam's union. It's tricky to discuss non-personal policies when, on an individual basis, they ARE personal!
(I actually have been known to go back and apologize to random strangers on the Internet when I realized what I'd said had come out wrong or wasn't taken how I meant! But that sure isn't always practical).
It did NOT come out awful; I really do understand the concept so much better now, and I realize it is just that tricky line between personal and theoretical, and that some people are more sensitive to certain things than others, and sometimes, well, people DO use well-meaning ideas in not-so-enlightened ways. Like the whole Magneto thing-- Magneto isn't a villain because his IDEALS are wrong, his ideals are actually quite right; he's a villain because of how he treats or disregards the innocent bystanders-- he's prioritized his ideals over people.
I wish we could hang out more, too!