Expression, and respectful expression, is a very nuanced and complex topic. This dramatic post presents the far end of the spectrum where every word can lead one to be fired. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
- People are likely to respond in a much more civil manner, they're not just going to yell at you
- A lot of complex intonation and nuance gets across a lot easier
- Any misunderstandings can be quickly corrected
On the other hand with the internet, you lose all those things, so IMO it's more up to the receiver to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, unless it's clear the speaker's intent is to insult.
While I think that's true to a certain extent, I'd also say that the internet selects for the loudest, rudest voices.
Example. I was reading this this morning. (this this? English is an odd language).
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinste...
Fine. I get it. Look for the first response (and others) from some guy named Thom Prentice. That's what the internet is all about. 10 second of research shows you that he's That Guy who goes to all the city council meetings to yell, continuously runs for office, has restraining orders. Every town has them.
That Guy has come to their full potential on social media.
People are going to ignore you and leave as well, because they (a) want to go about their day and have no interest in what you have to say, or (b) actively fear physical violence because you're within arm's reach of them, or (c) [my favorite] I'm actually in the office (or worse, with family) and still need to work with this person (or deal with them for the rest of their natural life), and would like to avoid an adversarial campaign of passive-aggressive retribution or (maybe worse?) an ongoing daily update on the dangers of chemtrails or whatever.
Basically, people who think dialogue happens better in person I don't think are necessarily being very cognizant of the fact that in person I'm equal parts trying to mind my physical safety and mind the overall environment I have to work in.
So am I self-censoring? Aggressively. Continuously.
It's appropriately calibrated.
If something would anger 50 people out of your neolithic tribe of ~100, it might well be a bad idea to say it. If something would anger 50 people on Twitter... I'm not sure there's a single thing that wouldn't anger 50 people on Twitter.
Sometimes it's bad. Insults are an occasionally useful tool, and can be wielded to diminish the standing of adversaries who might otherwise be more powerful.
EDIT: speaking of insults, this is on the HN front page right now:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27595429
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossa...
If we're moving past pure reason into useful tools and tricks to diminish people's standing... where is the bright line between that and the "cancel culture" bogeyman?
Without getting into the "cancel culture" aspect (which seems like a red herring), in order to even get to a point where "pure reason" comes into play, you have to force your adversary to engage on that level.
For instance, a powerful politician isn't going to take the risk of engaging in any argument unless there is something that makes ignoring it costly. If anything, they'll especially ignore a well-reasoned argument against them if they can get away with it. They're not going to get into a debate with someone because their points seem interesting or insightful; they're going to avoid engaging altogether. It's not worth the risk.
Insults are one of the tools that can create enough negative publicity to diminish their standing, and to force them to engage, in order to avoid further diminution.
People who say what they mean and call it like they see it are brave. They don’t cash in tomorrow for a little convenience today.
This does not seem like a good idea in practice. There are lots of thoughts we should keep to ourselves. If you see a friend with a new haircut, and you think it looks ugly, should you immediately just blurt out “hey, your new haircut looks awful”? Why? Just because it is how you feel doesn’t mean you need to tell everyone.
I find the people who insist on “telling it like it is” and who are “just being honest” are often just being assholes.
The emotional reaction to harmless words is not an intrinsic aspect of human biology. If someone says mean things in a malicious attempt to hurt you, it is natural to be emotionally disturbed or upset at the fact that someone has malicious intent toward you. But in some cultures you can tell someone their haircut is messed up and they understand that you don’t have malicious intent. It’s a cultural artifact, albeit a widespread one. It tripped me up for a long time too because I was born in a country that doesn’t know any better.
Anecdotally, I've found Russians to be the frankest and corruption is rampant there, so I am not sure what the basis of your assertion is.
Politeness is about respecting others. You can communicate difficult things while still being polite.
And let’s not forget Korea. Korea where they have this little problem called “the highest suicide rate in the developed world.” And it’s no cake walk over there. Inequality is insane. What else would you expect from a place where people insanely ignore what is right in front of them for a little short-term gain?
Do frank, direct cultures like Denmark and the Netherlands suffer from these problems? You tell me.
And Russia? Are you kidding? They are completely a culture of respect. Everything is based on respect. It’s one of the most emotion-based societies in the developed world. They will happily overlook little niggling and inconvenient truths for the sake of respect or perceived virtue, as evidenced by their former system of government. Try learning something about Russia… I remember the founder of Scihub had a parasite named after her out of respect by an American biologist or something. She was super offended. Russia is perhaps one of the worst countries in that respect. Almost anything will upset a Russian, let alone the truth. It’s one of the most “never say anything even remotely offensive or else they will be upset” countries out there. The fact that you don’t know this really reflects poorly on your argument. You cite your “experience” but then don’t appear to have much.
And yes I realize she’s not Russian, there’s a huge amount of overlap in their cultures.
My friends would expect me to say this, yes, and I have the same expectation. If everyone thought my haircut looked bad, I would want to know.
There's a middle ground: you can be honest if asked, but not volunteer negative opinions.
Sometimes it is both when you are speaking with the Dutch.
Singapore is less corrupt than the Netherlands.
Hong Kong is less corrupt than Austria and Belgium and Estonia.
Japan has less corruption than Poland.
Your claim seems based on cherry picking.
Imagine a spectrum where on one side you can’t say anything that would offend someone or put your immediate interests at risk, and on the other side you blurt out the truth even if you don’t want to.
In the former, corruption is inevitable. Nothing gets called out. In the latter, corruption is impossible. You obviously want to be closer to the latter. Just because you pull up some examples where they are pretty close but not all the way doesn’t really say anything about my argument. But thank you for calling out my hyperbolic use of the word “invariably,” like a good Scandinavian.