This is how we make this world crazier than ever before.
Imagine a writer making a post. And a comment that calls it “extreme”. And the writer understanding that the original text was actually too harsh and updating it - out of understanding. Everybody does it in each daily conversation.
Normal, routine, standard.
But in media, no way, there must be some weird undertone...
This is how online authors make their own space increasingly unbearable. Even great authors show themselves as persistent conspiracy seekers. Nice, reasonable, peaceful, humane people will run away from them. Why stay with folks who need more and more causes for their existence in the media?
Then they should acknowledge that. Unless they do, the comment that calls it correctly as extreme is then made to look stupid and incorrect as the post seems legit and the comment is calling it extreme. Perfect example.
There are limits. Common sense is one of them. If your writing is used by others to make decisions of importance, there is always a “List of changes” section in the document (like in technical manuals). Otherwise, the thinking process is left for the reader to activate and use.
The same is with everyday conversations. To be on the safe side (the snowflake syndrome), you should start every sentence with “In my opinion” or “I think”. Nobody does it. We all communicate assuming that the recipient understands the intricacies and will ask when in doubt.
Overburdening communication with safeguards will only damage relationships and our ability to navigate through them. It’s just another version of the pronouns stuff.
Please note that the example given (yes, it is good) is set in a particular context - you know the players, the game, the stakes, the habits, all traps and nonsense that is inherent to the venue. No need to double the word count of the article only to make sure that “everybody” is satisfied and given “all” information. Anyway, public writing serves a purpose, and that purpose is rarely to ensure informed consent.
This is how we make this world crazier than ever before.
Imagine a writer making a post. And a comment that calls it “extreme”. And the writer understanding that the original text was actually too harsh and updating it - out of understanding. Everybody does it in each daily conversation.
Normal, routine, standard.
But in media, no way, there must be some weird undertone...
This is how online authors make their own space increasingly unbearable. Even great authors show themselves as persistent conspiracy seekers. Nice, reasonable, peaceful, humane people will run away from them. Why stay with folks who need more and more causes for their existence in the media?
Then they should acknowledge that. Unless they do, the comment that calls it correctly as extreme is then made to look stupid and incorrect as the post seems legit and the comment is calling it extreme. Perfect example.
There are limits. Common sense is one of them. If your writing is used by others to make decisions of importance, there is always a “List of changes” section in the document (like in technical manuals). Otherwise, the thinking process is left for the reader to activate and use.
The same is with everyday conversations. To be on the safe side (the snowflake syndrome), you should start every sentence with “In my opinion” or “I think”. Nobody does it. We all communicate assuming that the recipient understands the intricacies and will ask when in doubt.
Overburdening communication with safeguards will only damage relationships and our ability to navigate through them. It’s just another version of the pronouns stuff.
Please note that the example given (yes, it is good) is set in a particular context - you know the players, the game, the stakes, the habits, all traps and nonsense that is inherent to the venue. No need to double the word count of the article only to make sure that “everybody” is satisfied and given “all” information. Anyway, public writing serves a purpose, and that purpose is rarely to ensure informed consent.
This looks like a bot/AI response.