(no subject)
Two days ago I received an abusive email from someone I didn’t know. The email was sent in response to another email that a friend of mine sent to me, the abuser and to others. Obviously the abuser felt strongly enough to respond, but in a manner that I find totally unacceptable. What I also found unacceptable was the fact that he included me and the other recipients in his response, not only in sending it to us, but seemingly including us in the abuse as if we had something to do with the original email.
I responded to him. I included the original sender so that they got a copy of my reply, the main reason was to show them that whilst this emailer might be abusive not everyone on the recipient list agreed with his reply, in content or in the manner.
I received a much more civilised reply from the abuser, although incorrect presumptions were made and words of sweeping denigration were incorporated that included me, without knowing anything about me and who I am.
I have replied back. I have only picked out one of the points the emailer made, mostly in passing, but it is one that I have felt strongly about for many years and have seen many people and even organisations hurt. It is the current inability to communicate via the written word, yet we have a vast ability via electronic communication to send the written word to many more people than ever before.
Behind the cut is what I wrote back, with direct references to the person involved removed.
One of your comments involved freedom of speech and ruining the mood at dinner.
I remember as a child accompanying my parents to dinner parties at friends’ homes, I remember the active discussions around the dinner table, often extending well past the time I fell asleep. These discussions covered a range of topics; education, rearing children, religion and politics being the most likely to created heated discussions. Yet I do not remember abuse, screaming matches or adults coming to blows or leaving in a huff. I do remember raised voices and finger shaking as the most violent part of the discussions. I also remember those friends still remaining friends despite the polar views and often the discussions were continued at the next dinner party the following week. Never was the mood ruined.
Those days do not exist any more. Political correctness, the worry of saying something that might offend, upset or incite another person, and the high potential of violence have stifled active and free discussions.
No longer can I discuss my point of view with respect to religion, politics, education, child rearing, drug abuse and a number of other issues with my friends openly and without being careful of the words that I use. And these are my friends. The topics we discuss are the latest TV shows, the latest clothing, the latest music and other inane topics. Only if I determine that the person’s point of view on a particular topic is similar to mine do we broach the topic and then openly discuss.
This means that I don’t receive varying and even opposite points of view with the arguments behind the beliefs. Cross pollination of ideas no longer exists, only inaccurate reinforcing of similar philosophies and values.
I believe that the main reason for this abhorrence to start discussions is that no one wants to risk a violent reaction from another person, and I include the violence of abuse, swearing and denigration by words.
Your initial reaction, fear and hatred culminating into verbal written abuse, is perfect example. Face to face or via voice communication verbal violence occurs more readily and is somewhat excusable. The heat of the moment can take a person by surprise and they state words that have had no pre-thought and are pure reaction. I would hope that that person would regret those words as soon as they had left their mouths but it is too late then. The hurt and damage has been done and will induce another reaction from their listeners.
Verbal violence via the written word is inexcusable, unless the author of the words intends to abuse. When the written word was hand written by pen on paper it was a relatively slow process. It took time to write each word. Add to that the fact that most people didn’t want to rewrite the page, and probably didn’t even want words or lines crossed out. This all implied that the author had time to think about the words before they were committed to paper. Time to consider and maybe calm down before writing a heated response. Even after the letter was finished and sealed in an envelope there was always a time period before the letter was posted and thus out of the author’s hands. During that time the author could decide to not send the letter.
In this electronic age those gaps and pauses don’t exist. It is easy to type up a response with anger and emotion the driving force. It is simple to click that ‘Send’ button and the words speeding to the recipient before the author engages the brain. Whilst it is easy it is not excusable. With the written word, by pen or by finger, there is always the ability to stop and think about each and every word. Electronically retracting those words before they are sent is simple. Once the document has been totally written there is still time available to scan the words in their totality and decide if the emotions and message that is conveyed is what you want to convey and if it is acceptable by some standard. There is also time to reread the original letter and decide what the actually message was, not what your immediate reaction was. Thus does your letter reply to the message said or to what you thought it said?
There is always time to read, consider and modify the written words.
I could read your reply, knowing that you had time to consider each words and the total message, and decide that you really did mean to abuse the sender of the original email, and also to include me and the other recipients in that abuse.
But I know human nature and thus presume that you reacted and typed without thought and pressed that Send button without engaging your brain.
I have other related issues with the written words. How the written words conveys no hints as to the intention of the author, other than the words themselves. When reading the written word there is no tone of voice, no body language of the author that might show the reader that the words have a different, subtler meaning than the actual words and sentence composition. Sarcasm and humour can be lost on the reader without the visual and audio hints we take for granted. At best a smilie or some other notation can be included with the written words, but it is no guarantee that the reader will receive the words and meaning the author intended. The meaning and intent of the words the reader takes on depends on the reader’s current emotion, their thought processes, their background and knowledge, emotion being the most variable and volatile of the list.
But the writers of emails in these times don’t think about the reader and how that person would interpret the words. They don’t because they have lost the art of discussing in person and thus have lost the art of discussing and presenting their point of view in written communication.
You might believe that the lost of discussion and of effective communication is a small point compared with the larger, more dangerous (in your opinion) point of war and killing, but I believe that this issue is the more dangerous of the two, and far more reaching in this age of internet and electronic communication.
Electronic communication opens up a person to a wider scope of people and ideas. Take us for example. Until yesterday I didn’t know you existed, and most likely you had no inkling of my existence. Yet you have made presumptions about me, about my political views, my religious views, all based on the country you believe I live in, which you got wrong.
It is far more important in the age of electronic communication and lessened personal communications, to get the written word correct to the best of your ability. Far more damage and far reaching damage can occur via email, than by the spoken word, and so easily. Free speech exists more over the internet that it ever did before and is more dangerous in that it has none of the holds it used to have (booing and rotten tomatoes were effective in halting a speaker; not that I am advocating those methods).
It is vital that people, all people with access to electronic communication, recognise this and take time to think about what words they use, how they put those words tighter on a page and what are the possible consequences of those words. I’m not advocating political correctness, or the softening of discussions, I just advocating thought.
It is equally vital for readers and recipients of electronic communications to think before reacting and investigate if they want to know more. The responsibility is equal to both parties.
I hope that you read this and think about my words and my meaning, as you perceive it. I hope that my presumption that you are intelligent and are open to varying ideas and beliefs is true. If you want to continue to discuss this topic I am willing to do so.
On the other topics that you bring up, I think I would have to wait until I know you better before I open myself up to discussing something that invokes strong emotions within you. I do not wish to be subjected to unrepentant insults and abuse again.
I will be interested to read what the person comes back with if anything. And I am still waiting and hoping for an apology of the initial abuse.
I responded to him. I included the original sender so that they got a copy of my reply, the main reason was to show them that whilst this emailer might be abusive not everyone on the recipient list agreed with his reply, in content or in the manner.
I received a much more civilised reply from the abuser, although incorrect presumptions were made and words of sweeping denigration were incorporated that included me, without knowing anything about me and who I am.
I have replied back. I have only picked out one of the points the emailer made, mostly in passing, but it is one that I have felt strongly about for many years and have seen many people and even organisations hurt. It is the current inability to communicate via the written word, yet we have a vast ability via electronic communication to send the written word to many more people than ever before.
Behind the cut is what I wrote back, with direct references to the person involved removed.
One of your comments involved freedom of speech and ruining the mood at dinner.
I remember as a child accompanying my parents to dinner parties at friends’ homes, I remember the active discussions around the dinner table, often extending well past the time I fell asleep. These discussions covered a range of topics; education, rearing children, religion and politics being the most likely to created heated discussions. Yet I do not remember abuse, screaming matches or adults coming to blows or leaving in a huff. I do remember raised voices and finger shaking as the most violent part of the discussions. I also remember those friends still remaining friends despite the polar views and often the discussions were continued at the next dinner party the following week. Never was the mood ruined.
Those days do not exist any more. Political correctness, the worry of saying something that might offend, upset or incite another person, and the high potential of violence have stifled active and free discussions.
No longer can I discuss my point of view with respect to religion, politics, education, child rearing, drug abuse and a number of other issues with my friends openly and without being careful of the words that I use. And these are my friends. The topics we discuss are the latest TV shows, the latest clothing, the latest music and other inane topics. Only if I determine that the person’s point of view on a particular topic is similar to mine do we broach the topic and then openly discuss.
This means that I don’t receive varying and even opposite points of view with the arguments behind the beliefs. Cross pollination of ideas no longer exists, only inaccurate reinforcing of similar philosophies and values.
I believe that the main reason for this abhorrence to start discussions is that no one wants to risk a violent reaction from another person, and I include the violence of abuse, swearing and denigration by words.
Your initial reaction, fear and hatred culminating into verbal written abuse, is perfect example. Face to face or via voice communication verbal violence occurs more readily and is somewhat excusable. The heat of the moment can take a person by surprise and they state words that have had no pre-thought and are pure reaction. I would hope that that person would regret those words as soon as they had left their mouths but it is too late then. The hurt and damage has been done and will induce another reaction from their listeners.
Verbal violence via the written word is inexcusable, unless the author of the words intends to abuse. When the written word was hand written by pen on paper it was a relatively slow process. It took time to write each word. Add to that the fact that most people didn’t want to rewrite the page, and probably didn’t even want words or lines crossed out. This all implied that the author had time to think about the words before they were committed to paper. Time to consider and maybe calm down before writing a heated response. Even after the letter was finished and sealed in an envelope there was always a time period before the letter was posted and thus out of the author’s hands. During that time the author could decide to not send the letter.
In this electronic age those gaps and pauses don’t exist. It is easy to type up a response with anger and emotion the driving force. It is simple to click that ‘Send’ button and the words speeding to the recipient before the author engages the brain. Whilst it is easy it is not excusable. With the written word, by pen or by finger, there is always the ability to stop and think about each and every word. Electronically retracting those words before they are sent is simple. Once the document has been totally written there is still time available to scan the words in their totality and decide if the emotions and message that is conveyed is what you want to convey and if it is acceptable by some standard. There is also time to reread the original letter and decide what the actually message was, not what your immediate reaction was. Thus does your letter reply to the message said or to what you thought it said?
There is always time to read, consider and modify the written words.
I could read your reply, knowing that you had time to consider each words and the total message, and decide that you really did mean to abuse the sender of the original email, and also to include me and the other recipients in that abuse.
But I know human nature and thus presume that you reacted and typed without thought and pressed that Send button without engaging your brain.
I have other related issues with the written words. How the written words conveys no hints as to the intention of the author, other than the words themselves. When reading the written word there is no tone of voice, no body language of the author that might show the reader that the words have a different, subtler meaning than the actual words and sentence composition. Sarcasm and humour can be lost on the reader without the visual and audio hints we take for granted. At best a smilie or some other notation can be included with the written words, but it is no guarantee that the reader will receive the words and meaning the author intended. The meaning and intent of the words the reader takes on depends on the reader’s current emotion, their thought processes, their background and knowledge, emotion being the most variable and volatile of the list.
But the writers of emails in these times don’t think about the reader and how that person would interpret the words. They don’t because they have lost the art of discussing in person and thus have lost the art of discussing and presenting their point of view in written communication.
You might believe that the lost of discussion and of effective communication is a small point compared with the larger, more dangerous (in your opinion) point of war and killing, but I believe that this issue is the more dangerous of the two, and far more reaching in this age of internet and electronic communication.
Electronic communication opens up a person to a wider scope of people and ideas. Take us for example. Until yesterday I didn’t know you existed, and most likely you had no inkling of my existence. Yet you have made presumptions about me, about my political views, my religious views, all based on the country you believe I live in, which you got wrong.
It is far more important in the age of electronic communication and lessened personal communications, to get the written word correct to the best of your ability. Far more damage and far reaching damage can occur via email, than by the spoken word, and so easily. Free speech exists more over the internet that it ever did before and is more dangerous in that it has none of the holds it used to have (booing and rotten tomatoes were effective in halting a speaker; not that I am advocating those methods).
It is vital that people, all people with access to electronic communication, recognise this and take time to think about what words they use, how they put those words tighter on a page and what are the possible consequences of those words. I’m not advocating political correctness, or the softening of discussions, I just advocating thought.
It is equally vital for readers and recipients of electronic communications to think before reacting and investigate if they want to know more. The responsibility is equal to both parties.
I hope that you read this and think about my words and my meaning, as you perceive it. I hope that my presumption that you are intelligent and are open to varying ideas and beliefs is true. If you want to continue to discuss this topic I am willing to do so.
On the other topics that you bring up, I think I would have to wait until I know you better before I open myself up to discussing something that invokes strong emotions within you. I do not wish to be subjected to unrepentant insults and abuse again.
I will be interested to read what the person comes back with if anything. And I am still waiting and hoping for an apology of the initial abuse.