|
17 Jun 00 - 12:34 AM (#243676) Subject: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,Temporarily Anonymous Hi, I tried to find an old Etiquette thread but didn't except for the Musical Etiquette one, which isn't on point. The question is, if people make incorrect assumptions about an individual based on the content of one's posts, is it rude not to correct them? I mean, will people feel "tricked" if these misapprehensions are ignored and then later you find out that you were wrong and allowed to go on thinking you were right? The reason I ask is that I prefer not to correct conclusions that have been jumped to incorrectly, unless the incorect assumption is something I find insulting. For example, I've had people assume from my comments that I was gay, which I'm not, but since I am "straight but not narrow" I don't find that worth correcting. I just don't care if you think I'm gay. But it might come up some day in a conversation that I am straight, and I don't want the folks who were allowed to keep their conclusions to then feel as if I tricked them. But my question is, is that rude? |
|
17 Jun 00 - 12:44 AM (#243683) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Mrrzy My take is, makes it more interesting when/if you meet in person if you don't know how to categorize a person ahead of time! Also, in this venue, gender, race, height, etc. ought not to matter anyway... What do y'all think? But I guess if I had assumed something about someone and they knew and and let it go, I might be embarrassed later to find out that I'd been wrong. |
|
17 Jun 00 - 12:45 AM (#243684) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Jim the Bart I am not an expert on etiquette (I'm not even sure I can spell it) but correcting someone on factual matters is usually appreciated, if it is done with tact and a touch of grace. I would rather be informed about the truth than continue speaking in error. I hate "jumping to confusions". |
|
17 Jun 00 - 01:18 AM (#243695) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: wysiwyg Well, how would you like to be treated? Try looking at it with the shoe on the other foot... now what makes sense? Also, what are your goals for communication? Decide how to handle these matters such that those goals are furthered. Of course personal messages can help alleviate confusion.... Maybe the time to clear up a misconception is when you see that it is actually in the way. A good friend of mine did that. He saw that something that had been left vague at a certain point in time had become something that might inhibit trust, if disclosed without care... so he chose to say he was uncomfortable about that and just gave the correct info, and listened to me about whether I felt odd about it. It worked fine-- closer than ever. Last... if you become aware that your communication style often leads to incorrect assumptions, try asking someone you trust why that is. You can always adjust.... And other than these considerations-- you can't actually be responsible for people's perceptions. It is an option to simply leave people to their own conclusions. ~S~ |
|
17 Jun 00 - 02:14 AM (#243709) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Rick Fielding Mrrzy, good thread. One of the things that can lead to misunderstandings is if you're a "good listener". I guess I am, and often find myself having to correct somewhat false impressions. I think sometimes folk feel that no one really takes the time to listen anymore, so when somebody actually does, often the person telling their story, feels that the listener is in complete "agreement" with their point of view....just because they DID listen. At times it can create bad feelings and a sense of betrayal. An example: I listened at great length to someone telling me about their "past lives" one time. It was fascinating, and they were very articulate in the way they recounted them. It wasn't till several weeks later that I had to say, "look I really doubt the reality of this...but it's a fascinating theory". The problem was that they'd decided I was as interested in discussing this constantly as they were. Caused a bit of uneasyness. Rick |
|
17 Jun 00 - 08:15 AM (#243740) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Little Neophyte Temporarily Anonymous, it is very difficult to control what someone else thinks. Even if you explain yourself, usually they will walk away thinking whatever they want anyway. What is most important is for you to do what feels comfortable and if that is like you said 'not to correct conclusions that have been jumped to incorrectly, unless the incorrect assumption is something you find insulting' I don't think there is anything of 'trickery' in that. If a person chooses to jump to an incorrect assumption about you, that is their choice. It is your choice to do what you feel is comfortable with that situation. Bonnie |
|
17 Jun 00 - 08:24 AM (#243741) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Jeri Temporarily Anonymous, my belief is that the truth (presented gently) is always best. Personal messages are a good idea if only one person is making the assumption. If you don't say something along the lines of "I get the impression you think I'm gay, and I'm not," then further down the road it may start to really get under your skin and you'll wind up saying something like "Hey, you [blanking] so-and-so..." (And it's possible you'll find that your assumption of the other person's assumption was wrong. Maybe not.) |
|
17 Jun 00 - 08:41 AM (#243743) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Jon Freeman Overall, I agree with Jeri but in something like this forum, as an example, even it only one person had made some remark that gave the impression that I was gay, I think I would reply to the thread rather than by personal message as I would feel that my public silence could be taken by others to mean that the remark in question was valid. Jon |
|
17 Jun 00 - 01:44 PM (#243819) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Little Neophyte Jerry and Jon both make a good point. I guess it was the way I was looking at the questions, but I do agree with them too. I am not sure if there is a right or wrong way to dealing with this situation. It boils down to what you will end up feeling most comfortable with. Bonnie |
|
17 Jun 00 - 02:15 PM (#243828) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Peter T. I hate to disagree with Jeri on any subject, but my experience (echoing Bonnie perhaps) is that the only way to dislodge most people's fixed notions of what you are or think is to do or say something completely outrageous so that you startle them into perhaps changing their mind. I am always doing this with my students. Two weeks ago at a student seminar I said that I was a curse upon the earth and had caused more damage to the earth by trying to protect it than everyone else in the class combined, and far more than the vast majority of people in the world could ever aspire to. They all looked at me like I was insane, until I pointed out that I have been to hundreds of environmental conferences around the world, and therefore I have logged many thousands of air miles, which percentage wise is far above any damage they could have caused. That is the sort of thing that breaks stereotypes. The same thing seems to me to be true in personal situations as well, though an example doesn't spring to mind. yours, Peter T. |
|
17 Jun 00 - 02:38 PM (#243833) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: SINSULL Anonymous, I recently responded to a thread wrongly assuming that the writer was male not female. The topic was one where I might have said the wrong thing and genuinely hurt somebody or at least hurt instead of helped. A very kind and sensible Mudcatter sent me a private message explaining my mistake. I was embarraassed but very grateful. The truth will make you free. Re: straight or gay. It's no one's business. But if by not correcting them they are made to feel foolish (maybe offering advice, names of organizations, whatever, in a spirit of genuine friendship), think about saying something.
|
|
17 Jun 00 - 03:07 PM (#243842) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: BlueJay Guest,Temporarily anonymous- Gender gaffes are common, especially with some of the nicknames we use. I have misidentified several folks sex. And political parties. With a name like"BlueJay", I was once confused with being female. My name is Jay. I don't mind. Corrections are definitely in order in these cases. I've been reminded, "Im a setter, not a pointer", more than once. When you read peoples posts, the misconceptions disappear. At one time, I thought Catspaw was female. Maybe I confused him with kat/katlaughing. Once I started reading some of his hilarious posts, I realized that this is not the case. If something is really important that you want the group to know, be up front. Otherwise, most of what you are will come out in conversation anyway. Correct if needed, and accept diplomatic corrections when YOU make a mistake, as you eventually will. Welcome to the Mudcat. BlueJay, who is neither female, a bird species, nor blue. |
|
17 Jun 00 - 04:25 PM (#243854) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Little Neophyte I am monosexual Now you all can perceive that whatever way you guys like. Bonnie
|
|
17 Jun 00 - 04:36 PM (#243857) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: BlueJay Banjo Bonnie- I would take that to mean that you are only one sex. Either that, or you only listen to one speaker... |
|
17 Jun 00 - 05:13 PM (#243868) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Megan L It is very easy to make mistakes especially with names both on and of the net. On a course we kept hearing the instructors talking about Drew we thought short for Andrew turned out to be Dru short for Drucilla and I have lost count of the Ray/Rae, Pat, Joe/Jo, Davy(David and Davina) and Stevie (Steven and Stephanie) friends and aquantainces I have Iv'e got it wrong so often over the phone that they now identify themselves in other ways. |
|
17 Jun 00 - 08:36 PM (#243902) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: McGrath of Harlow A lot of people seem to like this business of being pseudonymous, and nobody knowing who you are or anything about you unless you tell them.
I suppose if you are famous or notorious that might appeal. "If they knew I weas reallynthe Oope they'd get all embarassed and I couldn't post on the Improper Language thread..." - that kmind of stuff.
But otherwise I can't see the point. I'd sooner be out in the open, so long as noone's shooting at me. Even did a profile. |
|
17 Jun 00 - 09:33 PM (#243917) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Mrrzy I shall check out your profile forthwith, McGrath! |
|
17 Jun 00 - 11:38 PM (#243940) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,flattop If I misunderstood correctly, Anon is complaining about being mistaken for a homosexual, although, calling himself Anonymous may lead to him being further confused with dead poets. Maybe he should have presented himself as Guest, Temporarily with a penis and straight intentions. Praise is suggesting that he try looking at the world with his shoe on the wrong foot. Mazlow (sp?), a psychologist often quoted by business writers for his theories of motivation, wrote that homosexuality was not a mental illness, but it was a bit like wearing shoes on the wrong feet. What are you suggesting Praise? (I'm sure Praise wrote with the best intentions. I've never seen her do anything else, even when I bait her.) |
|
18 Jun 00 - 01:18 AM (#243955) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Escamillo If English were a foreign language for you, you would be amazed at how easily genders can be confused. Many times I make an image of the person who wrote some post, and I imagine HIM, just to see some later post where "he" talks about "hubby", then I realize my mistake (though I keep confused for a while, looking for the possibility of a same-sex couple, then shake my head and start calling her Lady). Many times I hesitate to make any reference to his/her wife/husband cause I´m really unsure! Fortunately my nickname is deeply Spanish and clearly male, and although it doesn't say anything about my preferences, at least nobody will talk to me about suckleing a baby ! Catspaw may be a neutral name, but after reading one post from him I don´t need to see his photo at bbc resources. It reminds me an old joke: How do you determine which is the male in a couple of parrots ?: hold them each one in each hand, then switch them once, then twice, then several times more.When one of them rises its head and tells you "what a f#&k are you doing, you d@*n s@@#er", then THAT´s the male. Back to the subject, please correct me when I'm wrong about identities Un abrazo - Andrés
|
|
18 Jun 00 - 12:54 PM (#244069) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Rick Fielding Dear Peter If you are "a curse upon the earth".... I am "the wrath of God" Aguirre |
|
18 Jun 00 - 01:44 PM (#244077) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Jeri There are different levels of response. I guess flat out honest works only if you 1)wish a friendly solution (by preventing possible embarrassment or argument), and 2)believe the other person is capable of understanding. I might do what Jon said, and say something publicly if I got the feeling others might have the same wrong assumption. Peter's method would work to get people question reality as they saw it. It won't just correct the current situation, but possibly will get them to think a bit in future. It helps if you see it as not a big deal. Folk often assume I have Irish ancestry, because I play Irish fiddle tunes, have red hair and a light complexion. Them: "Oh, I'll bet you wanted to get in touch with ancestral roots." Me: "Nope. No Irish ancestors at all." Easy and simple. Of course, if a lot of people kept saying similar things, I'd probably have the explanation put on a T-shirt. |
|
18 Jun 00 - 03:16 PM (#244096) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,Temporarily Anonymous Flattop, you have misunderstood incorrectly. I was not complaining about being mistaken for a homosexual; rather I used that error as an example of something that I would not complain about, would have no urge to correct normally - BUT - was wondering if then later, the person who had made the mistake would be mad because it hadn't been corrected. Since I am "straight but not narrow" (my favorite desciption of people who aren't gay but don't care whether you are or not), I would not normally care, and were someone to jump to an incorrect conclusion based on the content of one of my posts, I would not be moved to correct that misapprehension. But look at Sinsull's post - they [which I use as a gender-neutral singular pronoun] were upset that they'd been wrong, not because they felt misled, I don't think (Sinsull?) but because they were afraid they had insulted another member by thinking they were of a different gender than actuality. My question is whether the member in question should have corrected the misapprehension to save that possible embarrassment, even if they didn't care whether anyone knew their correct gender or not. It might not have occurred to them that someone would be embarrassed by such a mistake. Especially if they did't feel that the post itself was misleading, which is a separate issue. Of course, if I LEAD someone to an incorrect conclusion (and usually if someone forms one, I go back and reread my original post to see how it happened), I would correct it. Just like now, where I think you misunderstood my question. Hope this clarifies it... |
|
18 Jun 00 - 03:24 PM (#244097) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Sorcha I don't think anybody ever died of embarrassment. It's just one of those "Oh well, more egg" type things. I do it at least once a day. Called Foot in Mouth Disease. |
|
18 Jun 00 - 03:45 PM (#244102) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Jeri Speaking of baiting...er, flattop, where did you get the idea Temporarily Anonymous is male? And since confession is good for the soul, I believed Temporarily Anonymous was giving an example of something that actually happened, not a hypothetical one. Oh well, same answer. I make mistakes, and I personally prefer to be corrected - gently if possible. |
|
18 Jun 00 - 10:23 PM (#244218) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Mrrzy Temporarily Anonymous, when you get consensus, will you tell us who you are? |
|
18 Jun 00 - 10:37 PM (#244227) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Jon Freeman I am more interested in how something can be "missunderstood incorrectly". Is it possible to "missunderstand correctly" or to "understand incorrectly)? ;-) Jon |
|
18 Jun 00 - 10:55 PM (#244231) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Callie I have a friend who is not gay, and whose brother is quite active Gay Politics and some support groups. They are a close family and she often accompanies her brother to functions, parties, gatherings etc. Some time ago she became aware that her gay friends had assumed that she was also gay, because she went along to so many gay gatherings. While she didn't care about whether they percieved her gay or straight, she DID mind that if they ever found out she wasn't gay they might feel misled by her. But as it has never come up in conversation, she doesn't feel like just saying "by the way, I'm not gay" a propos of nothing. I think this situation is easier to deal with on-line. Guest, you appear very articulate. I'm confident there are ways of describing experiences WITH THE WRITTEN WORD in a way that is difficult verbally. When you write things down you can put things in parentheses, play with CAPS etc, and there's no one to interrupt you or switch off after you've made an initial attempt. Just the way you have explained yourself very eloquently on this topic, you do have the option of explaining what your situation and feelings are on a topic, and at the time they are raised. And at the same time, as you have here, you could explain why you are in two minds about explaining or correcting an assumption. best wishes Callie |
|
18 Jun 00 - 11:27 PM (#244243) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: catspaw49 Ya know, this is entertainin' reading and all that sorta' stuff, but I don't have a clue what its about. It seems that its wandered here and there and has some interesting abstract reasoning for imaginary situations, but could I just ask you there Guest Anonymous Type Temp person, what are you talking about? If you perceive someone has an incorrect opinion/vision/whatever of you, politely tell them. If they act like a jerk about it, either tell them to bugger off or (more practical) just ignore them. Personally, I think you're a homosexual, Lebanese, cross dressing woman, born into a man's body. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Spaw |
|
18 Jun 00 - 11:38 PM (#244248) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Marymac90 Temp. Anon, your attitude has reminded me of an important moment in my education. In about 1977, I was a member of an organization which promoted social change on a variety of levels. We used to have annual get-togethers, where we discussed issues, made decisions, and sang a lot, too. On the occaision I'm recalling, gay and lesbian members had just spoken out to the membership about how they felt about some experiences they'd had. Several people gave their responses. One person, in expressing concern that non-members might perceive us incorrectly, if our literature seemed totally inclusive of gays and lesbians, said "Suppose they think we're a gay and lesbian organization?" Our gay members felt hurt by this, and we began to understand a bit of how it would feel to be gay or lesbian, and have some members worrying that other people might think that "Horrors! They're all gay!" We began to realize that it was more important that we should be forthright about our acceptance of and support for gays and lesbians and their concerns, and not important for us to be concerned whether people might take any of us for being gay or lesbian. I suppose this attitude would say something for letting someone make an incorrect assumption. Mainly, I think I related it because it shows how people can be hurt if they feel that who they ARE is not accepted or wanted by the group, and feel they would have to conceal who they were. All the best, Marymac |
|
19 Jun 00 - 09:51 AM (#244393) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: SINSULL I can easily understand how Bluejay could have assumed Catspaw was female not male. His "feminine" side is always out there. I honestly thought that Kendall was about 20 years old. His posts always seemed to have such a young man's "But that's the way it should be..." feel to them. Very young, very fresh. I was shocked to learn he was over thirty. Sorcha's "foot in mouth disease" hit the nail on the head. My private message to the person I was afraid I had offended read "Open mouth, Insert foot". This isn't the first time Sorcha has "read my mind". I am starting to worry. Jackson Heights has a large gay population. It was the site of a well publicized, vicious gay bashing/murder. I know one of the young men who was convicted of the crime and will probably never get over the shock of hearing what he had done. So I attend every rally, parade, meeting,etc. with an anti-violence theme that comes up hoping the message will reach another potential gay basher and stop him. About a year ago, I arrived early at a parade protesting the murder/torture of a young gay man in the midwest. The press arrived early as well. My picture was on all the news channels, the front page of several newspapers, and months later appeared over a headline about how gay and lesbian groups were joining forces to protect themselves. I am fascinated and amused by the repercussions. Should I really be obliged to publicly declare that I am straight? And if so, why? |
|
19 Jun 00 - 10:40 AM (#244420) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Crowhugger Mrrzy, "Temporarily Anonymous, when you get consensus, will you tell us who you are?" LOL!!! Consensus?! CH. |
|
19 Jun 00 - 10:44 AM (#244426) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: wysiwyg flattop, You got a lot out of what I wrote that I did not say! I was asking the writer to look at it from the viewpoint of the one who had misunderstood, to think about how s/he would like to be treated! You know-- that Golden Rule thing! When the shoe is on the other foot?? And since you brought it up, why do you bait me? I don't like it, nor do I have much time or the energy for the viewpoint gyrations it takes to answer you responsibly. I'd rather be friends. Much more fun. ~S~ |
|
19 Jun 00 - 11:28 AM (#244451) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,TempAnon (for short) OK, let me see if I can clarify again... JON - I said Misunderstood Incorrectly because the question was Have I misunderstood you correctly. I think we were both being funny. Callie, you have the EXACT thing I mean. Your friend shouldn't have to say Oh I'm not gay, and the gay and lesbians should not feel insulted if it turns out they were wrong in their assumption. However, they might be anyway, even though they OUGHT not to be, after all, it ought not to be an insult to be thought to be a different gender, isn't the whole point of not being genderist that while they are DIFFERENT, none are better or worse? My take here is that Mudcatters are pretty enlightened, generous, non-bigoted, and that is why I was so surprised to see people APOLOGIZING for having been mistaken about issues of identity. If I mistake someone for a wo/man, when the correction comes I am not embarrassed as it would not occur to me that it was an INSULT. For instance, I have a long-haired small child frequently assumed to be female, which he isn't. But I am never OFFENDED if someone thinks he's a girl, and I am training him not to be either, as being thought a girl IS NO INSULT. If someone says How old is she? I just answer He's 5. If they then get all upset, I just smile and say That's fine, I'm glad you think he's pretty / well behaved - whatever prompted the comment - enough to be a mistaken for a girl. So far it's working, and he is the least likely in his entire preschool class to say thinks like Girls, ick. JERI - if anyone ASKS am I (whatever) I answer truthfully. But I'm talking about when they don't ask, just keep going, and I don't feel the urge to correct them UNLESS I DO find their assumptions to be annoying/insulting/(pick a negative affect term). It's the errors that I don't care about that I don't correct. And I don't find it insulting to be thought to be gay, Lebanese, cross-dressing or other, but SINCE YOU ASKED so nicely, Spaw, I can tell you that I am female, have US citizenship, and wear what would have been men's clothes in an earlier American era as I tend to wear pants a lot more than skirts or dresses, but then again in other cultures the skirts are what men wear, so although I don't consider myself to be a cross-dresser, others might. But because I consider none of those terms to be insulting, had you gone on with those assumptions without asking for feedback, I might have just let them go. WOULD YOU HAVE THEN BEEN UPSET TO FIND OUT LATER YOU'D BEEN WRONG? And Crowhugger, I think what was meant was When you are satisfied with the answers you have received. |
|
19 Jun 00 - 11:29 AM (#244454) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,Mrr I have to admit that the choice of the word Consensus was rather thoughtless! How about When you think you have your answer? |
|
19 Jun 00 - 11:48 AM (#244465) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,TempAnon I guess, upon rereading the whole thing, that the issue is that I don't think people should be upset if they mistake me for a different gender/race/whatever since I don't consider any subgroups to be worse than any others. And I don't correct misapprehensions along those lines, unless relevant to the conversation, because I don't think people should think that they are insulting people by putting them in the wrong bin, because again, bins are just different, and none ought to be considered worse than others. However, I also realize that this is not a general attitude, since people, even some Mudcatters, ARE upset when they find out they were wrong. So my priorities become the question - is it more important to me to continue to practice nothing-ism and continue not to correct, and to reassure those who might worry about misidentifying that I was in no way insulted? Or do I put avoiding the worry above avoiding the isms? My tendency is to avoid the -ism rather than the worry as I do find it CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that people stop considering mistaken identity to be insulting. But I don't want to upset people I consider my friends, either. HELP! What to do? |
|
19 Jun 00 - 02:52 PM (#244553) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,flattop Anon and Praise, please accept my apologies. Jerri, if we ever meet, feel free to give me a slap. Basically, I feel that we all have more in common with each other than folks who dwell on sexual apparatus and preferences would imply. In most Mudcat threads gender shouldn't matter. My own gender and prefernces are a poor excuse for not appreciating someone else's joy or sorrow. Language confusion exists everywhere so why not on Mudcat where we use funny names and have names from around the planet? We should expect it and not be troubled or too surprised when we make mistakes - like I just did. Thank you for correcting me.
|
|
19 Jun 00 - 02:59 PM (#244555) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: MMario anon. I would say avoid the -isms. and worry about the worries when and if they arise. Each worry will probably have a different solution, including quite possibly doing nothing, depending on who, when, where, why. |
|
19 Jun 00 - 03:51 PM (#244584) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,TempAnon Flattop, I agree with you where you say My own gender and prefernces are a poor excuse for not appreciating someone else's joy or sorrow. Language confusion exists everywhere so why not on Mudcat where we use funny names and have names from around the planet? We should expect it and not be troubled or too surprised when we make mistakes... bingo. I would only add - don't be offended if others make a mistake about you either, in addition to don't be offended if you find out you made a mistake. Although I would hesitate to call it a "consensus" I am going to tally the Correct People answers and the Don't Worry About It answers and see if we at least have a clear majority... |
|
19 Jun 00 - 04:00 PM (#244587) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: catspaw49 Put me down in the "I don't give a turkey as long as you're honest and have a sense of humor" category. Spaw---Well known homosexual, Lebanese, cross-dressing woman, born into a man's body (and a pretty pathetic one at that). |
|
19 Jun 00 - 04:15 PM (#244598) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,TempAnon OK, we have roughly one third saying Don't worry about it if it doesn't bug you, one third saying Please correct misapprehensions, and one third clarifications, chitchat, and other, not counting the original post. I counted anyone saying How would you feel if you were wrong as agreeing with no need to correct, as I would not be offended. Whew, consensus ain't the right word at all! I think I'll re-tally if this thread gets much longer, but for the moment, since there is not a clear preference for correction over let it slide, I'll continue to let it all slide, unless the error bugs me. I would also recommend to everyone not to sweat it if you make a mistake. So what if you mistook a man for a woman or a straight for a gay or a green for a turquoise? Unless the talk was about sex instead of music, most of these categories continue to be irrelevent. Sinsull, I am sure whatever you said was sweet, and the fact that you thought you were writing to a man is irrelevent to the sweetness of the thought, and I hope that the woman to whom you wrote told you so. |
|
20 Jun 00 - 04:26 PM (#245057) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: SINSULL She did. |
|
20 Jun 00 - 06:03 PM (#245095) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: McGrath of Harlow I'm still trying to work out why it is anybody wants to be pseudonymous on this kind of website anyway.
I mean, I can imagine online communities where a lot of the fun might lie in building up some artificial personality who wasn't actually real at all, but what I get the sense of here is that most of us are being ouselves, but using a pseudonym for other reasons, maybe because using your own name can lead to hassles of one kind or another.
But I'm still not clear about it.
A propos the example temporarily anonymous gave, I remember a lapel badge "How dare you assume I'm a heterosexual". Really confused people, because they couldn't make out whether it meant the wearer was gay or not gay.Which of course it did - mean't he or she was gay or not gay. Or the other way round. Not a matter of great import to know about anyone else, unless you fancied them, or they fancied you.
I think I'll get one saying "How dare you assume I'm a folkie" and stick it on the concertion I've just bought. |
|
20 Jun 00 - 07:11 PM (#245120) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Jeri McGrath, I've posted anonymously before because I was asking for opinions and felt that knowledge of who I was would affect the answers. Folks mainly ignored my posts. I wonder if they would have if my name had been on them. One thing I have noticed is that if an anonymous poster disagrees with someone, they stand a greater chance of getting a less than reasonable reply. Just my opinion. Another possible reason is if Temp Anon had posted under their true identity, it may have been obvious who made the incorrect assumption and embarrassed them. |
|
20 Jun 00 - 07:22 PM (#245122) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST Astute observation, Jeri....I think you're on to something. |
|
20 Jun 00 - 07:42 PM (#245135) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: McGrath of Harlow There's anonymous, when for some you don't want to be identified, and that can sometimes makes sense for the kind of reasons Jeri perceptively gave (I haven't got round to doing it, but I can imagine various occasions) -but that's not the same as beinmg pseudonymous, and again that different from having a nickname.
Please note, I'm not criticising the practice, I'm just curious about it. |
|
20 Jun 00 - 11:16 PM (#245213) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Ebbie Hmmmm...Food for thought, McGrath. {Although I do notice that you too have your 'handle'.} I suspect that handles have a long history, although for no particularly good reason that I know of. I remember the CB's in the long-haul trucking industry. So far as I know, no one ever says anything as straightforward as Hi, this is Don Adams and I'm here on the turnpike at 235 wondering which exit I need in order to get to Poughkeepsie. No, he says, Yo! This is Bad and Wicked Axe and I'm looking for a hole to offramp to Puhkeeps. Do you suppose we're indulging in the same macho (macha?) motivator? Frankly, I'm willing to give mine up- I'll give mine up if y'all give up yours! Ebbie, for now. |
|
20 Jun 00 - 11:20 PM (#245215) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: catspaw49 This thread gets stranger and stranger........... Okay.......I'll drop mine and you can call me Joe Shit the Rag Man. naw...too long.......... Spaw
|
|
20 Jun 00 - 11:36 PM (#245231) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: sophocleese Well, pseudonyms can be fun, look at some of the interesting names that people have given themselves here at Mudcat. You can bring out another aspect of yourself that you've worried about people seeing before. Also, although the majority of Mudcatters wouldn't harm anybody else, they may not be the only ones reading these threads. Pseudonyms can give a level of privacy and security that straightforwardness doesn't. I'm not sure how much that privacy or security is real and how much is imagination but it probably doesn't matter. I think Jeri is right in saying that anonymity can cause people to respond differently and sometimes that's what you want. |
|
20 Jun 00 - 11:50 PM (#245239) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Ebbie Catspaw, you're awful! But you make me laugh out loud more often than anyone. Ebbie |
|
21 Jun 00 - 12:32 AM (#245261) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Sorcha OK, just call me Sork the Dork.........(apologies, Larry, but I had to say it!) |
|
21 Jun 00 - 10:56 AM (#245416) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,TempAnon Yes, I did ask this question anonymously at first because I didn't want to reveal that about half the people answering another question of mine had made an incorrect assumption about me that I hadn't corrected because it didn't matter, at least not to me. It doesn't make sense to ask Should I correct these errors in the same sentence that reveals the error, right? And it is because I don't care what people think I am, most of the time, unless there is a possible mating ritual involved, that I didn't feel the urge to "come out" since it is INTERESTING to me what people assume, and how their answers differ based on those assumptions. Also, I don't know jack about security and protecting my hard drive from hackers and so on, so I do feel "safer" the less people know about me individually. I don't care if I bare my soul in threads that would tell people what kind of thoughts I have or what I find important and so on, my opinions on things, but I don't see the need for them to know that these thoughts are being voiced by a woman or a man, or what race I am, or what my sexual and erotic orientations are, or how tall I am or how much I weigh or anything else NOT GERMANE TO THE DISCUSSION. I also wish that these categorizations were less important to ANYONE outside of mating, which is the one place that you are allowed to have preferences that aren't bigoted, like only women, or no Asians, or whatever. It isn't sexist to be heterosexual, but it is to care if it's a woman or a man who just said they like k d lang. Or whatever. BUT the reason I asked if this was rude is that someone (someone I like, that is) was embarrassed that they jumped to an incorrect conclusion and thought they'd offended me. I wouldn't have minded them being embarrassed, after all, incorrect conclusions can be embarrassing but you learn from them, but I didn't want them thinking they'd offended me. And I wasn't sure how to reassure them without getting into what I didn't want to get into, if that makes sense. |
|
21 Jun 00 - 01:59 PM (#245494) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: GUEST,moonchild @ work McGrath ... the reason people post under pseudonyms is because there are creeps on the internet and the mudcat is no exception. Having been stalked by a mudcatter, my opinion is educated on that score. The reason I recently gave out my real name is because I am no longer fearful of this person and, frankly, don't really care much anymore who knows my name. |
|
21 Jun 00 - 02:34 PM (#245499) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: The Shambles The name we use online is usually the first one we find that the site will accept. One that is not already in use and we do this because the site asks us to.
Jeri's point about not posting under your name or handle raises some interesting questions. Especially when she (or he, this is getting too silly), points out that when she has done this, her post has been largely ignored. Should The Mudcat forum not be more about what is said rather than who is saying it?
If all contributions were made anonymously I feel that the responses would be made to the points rather than to the individual making them and the discussions would be better as a result. The downside would be that the forum would tend to be less interesting and possibly more insulting? It is about reaching a balance, I suppose?. I generally just read the posts and having read them will move on to the next one. I only very occasionally even look to see who is making the point. I feel those that those here who say that they look out for and respond to certain other posters, possibly miss out on the full potential of and may limit the forum to some extent? I feel however that this may represent the minority view?
|
|
21 Jun 00 - 03:10 PM (#245516) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: McGrath of Harlow The handy thing about names of all sorts (includiong pseudonymns, nicknames and handles) is that if someone says something interesting, you can click and find if they've said something else interesting that you'd missed. Or if you think someone is contradicting themselves you can check up on them - that's a bit sneaky.
Anonymity proper - ie posting as GUEST doesn't allow us that, And there are times when there's a fair enough reason why that, like this thread. But it gets annoying when it gets confusing to tell whether two unadorned GUESTS on the same thread are the same person or not. Partly that is because you tend to know that they are just trying to be annoying. And if you want to annoy people there are so much mmore interesting ways of doing it.
|
|
21 Jun 00 - 06:49 PM (#245601) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Mrrzy Right, McGrath. When posting as Guest (as from work or while traveling - Can't miss the 'cat for more than an overnight) I call myself Mrr, which is still my mickname, short for Mrrzy; at first I called myself Mrr-at-Work, or Mrrzy-at-work, but then I figured there aren't two mrr*s out there and people pretty much ought to know it was me. Wonder how many did... For as long as I can remember (but only while in English-speaking countries, it doesn't work in French) when writing paper notes to people I tend to sign them Mrr, even at work. Eventually anyone I hang out with for any time starts calling me Mrr anyway. That is why I was surprised, for instance, that AllanC didn't recognize me when I joined the Mudcat. I am getting the feeling that people don't want to know who Temporarily Anonymous is... Other thoughts on that? |
|
21 Jun 00 - 07:31 PM (#245629) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Little Neophyte I aspire to view a posting by what it said rather than who is saying it. Whether the poster offers a name to identify themselves or not, what matters most are the thoughts contributed. Little Neo |
|
21 Jun 00 - 08:24 PM (#245653) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: McGrath of Harlow I like to know who I'm disagreeing with or agreeing with in a discussion. By which I mean that I want to know if that person who said that thing that seems not to make sense has actually said a lot of things before that turned out to be pretty wise, so that maybe I'd better try and puzzle out if what they are saying this time really makes sense after all.
Essentially it's the difference between a bunch of people having a discussion, and a bunch of people heckling each other.
But there's times when keeping schtum about who you are makes perfect sense, and we've every right to do it without being hassled. So I wish people would stop badgering Temporarily Anonymous to take off the cloak of invisibility. It's a perfectly appropriate garment for the thread, and has enabled things to be discussed in a less cluttered way.
|
|
21 Jun 00 - 08:35 PM (#245658) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Little Neophyte When I let go of my assumptions about people completely it is amazing how life opens up and I find aspects about that person I never realized. If I assume things about a particular poster and then base my perspective of them on my assumptions, I have limited my reality. There is a magnificant treasure box to be found within people. To find it, you just have to let go of the frame you have placed them. Little Neo |
|
21 Jun 00 - 08:37 PM (#245659) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: Little Neophyte ....the frame you have placed them in. |
|
22 Jun 00 - 02:27 AM (#245769) Subject: RE: BS: NonMusic: Identity Etiquette From: The Shambles We can hide behind lots of things if we wish to. Clothes for example. I read an article on how The Queen and Lady Diana Spencer were dressed when they met at Balmoral. Casually dressed as those people do, to enable them to recognise each other. |