Beside privilege (which I'm taking to mean, "part of the locally dominant group") and not being used to opposition, there's probably also a reason to be found in absolute phrasing being a form of identity assertion. Inversely, relativizing or limiting language would be a form of self-denial. You can do it with effort but judging from its general lack in many areas it's not a natural mode of speaking. Relatedly:
because you lose any claim that you are interested in learning and listening.
Preachers participating under false pretenses--yeah, ban those guys. But there are types that're actually interested but will unexpectedly explode later.
I'm sure you've heard of the psychological thing where someone who's doubtful about an important belief of theirs will try to convert others to it? And the one where people presented with belief-contradicting evidence will see it as an attack and double down on the belief instead of giving it up?
These conditions can sneak up on you. The internet has a low barrier to entry, letting in the curious and inexperienced as well as the dedicated and aware. People who would be able to pass a test of language the first, second, or third time, but the fourth hits the wrong topic and they respond without thinking, trying to 'win' rather than 'discuss'.
You may want these people to stick around despite this. Assuming they apologize and it only happens rarely. Or maybe you'd be happier avoiding it.
(I used to do this unfortunately often. Nowadays... I do it less. But if you invite me to a discussion and I decline then it's probably why. Instances of it are rather disconcerting in hindsight.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-01-14 11:13 am (UTC)Beside privilege (which I'm taking to mean, "part of the locally dominant group") and not being used to opposition, there's probably also a reason to be found in absolute phrasing being a form of identity assertion. Inversely, relativizing or limiting language would be a form of self-denial. You can do it with effort but judging from its general lack in many areas it's not a natural mode of speaking. Relatedly:
because you lose any claim that you are interested in learning and listening.
Preachers participating under false pretenses--yeah, ban those guys. But there are types that're actually interested but will unexpectedly explode later.
I'm sure you've heard of the psychological thing where someone who's doubtful about an important belief of theirs will try to convert others to it? And the one where people presented with belief-contradicting evidence will see it as an attack and double down on the belief instead of giving it up?
These conditions can sneak up on you. The internet has a low barrier to entry, letting in the curious and inexperienced as well as the dedicated and aware. People who would be able to pass a test of language the first, second, or third time, but the fourth hits the wrong topic and they respond without thinking, trying to 'win' rather than 'discuss'.
You may want these people to stick around despite this. Assuming they apologize and it only happens rarely. Or maybe you'd be happier avoiding it.
(I used to do this unfortunately often. Nowadays... I do it less. But if you invite me to a discussion and I decline then it's probably why. Instances of it are rather disconcerting in hindsight.)