Things I'm thinking about and a question

[feuervogel]

Pursuant to a discussion I was told I'm not allowed to have in comments on someone else's facebook post because I'm "imposing my opinions in [their] space" and I "must" pursue it in my own space (see question below), I'm thinking about writing a post about the gross assumptions of economic and able-bodied privilege in the slow food movement. And, yes, for fuck's sake, I want fucking comments on it; it's not a fucking imposition to discuss something.

Also thinking about organizing all my ho-shit and planning stuff for Operation: Move to Berlin in a single post for future reference, rather than having a bunch of random shit bookmarked (or not bookmarked at all, leaving me to try to remember which terms I put in google to get the link I'm looking for).

Question: Is it "imposing your opinions in someone else's space" to comment disagreeing with an article they linked to, or a post they wrote? Is one obligated to comment on one's own facebook or LJ, rather than use the fucking convenient "comment here" button?

I have always believed that it is passive-aggressive sniping to, for example, write a post for the sole purpose of disagreeing with someone, even if you don't say "Person X says blah." You can twist their words, especially if you don't link back (because that person's journal is f-locked, or because 95% of your friends aren't friends with them on facebook, or whatever). If you sit back and don't engage someone directly, but passive-aggressively snipe them through posts similar to my first paragraph*, that's just not cool.

Aside from that, it results in a very disjointed "conversation," which some of the people who read LJ A but not LJ B (and both are locked) cannot participate in.

*which I did on purpose

Comments

[krait]

As regards passive-aggressive sniping and impositions:

I generally regard a commentable post to be an invitation to discussion, because options exist to close that. However, if an impasse is reached or the postmaker changes their mind, and politely asks someone to desist from discussing, I would heed that.

If they clearly said I "must" pursue it in my own space, I'd take that as blanket dismissal, and as long as my post was about the issue and not the person, I'd feel free to go on at length and possibly even mention in the postmaker's comments that discussion was now going on in my space for any interested parties. It's disjointed a little, as you note, but if the postmaker's serious about not discussing it then people should either give up or migrate, depending on how much they want to talk about it.

Without their clear dismissal... I think it comes down to approach, still. One can say "I saw an interesting post yesterday but the writer wasn't interested in discussion, so here's my take on it" with perfect politeness. I think passive aggression only starts when names are named, or the discussion becomes about the actions of the person you disgree with, rather than the topic. (Are you proving how you think about topic X, or are you proving Person A was wrong about topic X? One's a real discussion, the other's a passive-aggressive attack.)

Not that a bit of passive-aggressive sniping is the worst crime the Internet has ever faced. :D

Edited because I forgot to continue: I know very little about Facebook, so how much the commonly-held rules of journal/blogspace apply there in the userbase hivemind, I really don't know. Ultimately, in other words, I am very little help. (Avoiding Facebook like I would a rabid dog is the policy that's worked for me so far and thus the advice I'm inclined to give; but I know many people can't.) Short of polling a half-million Facebook users to see what the prevailing attitudes are toward reply-policing, I can only go on what I see/feel/acquire from LJ; but I can see there are big differences in the assumptions about interpersonal relationships between the sites.

[feuervogel]

I just really don't like posts that are, like, "I was talking about X somewhere else, but Person A didn't want to talk about it," because Person A is reading it and knows you're talking about them but not specifically saying so. It's ... icky. It reminds me of middle school.

[krait]

I don't blame you. I guess my circle of friends is widely dispersed enough that I'm used to having to clarify "there was this post over somewhere else, and I want to talk about it here (too)"?

Would leaving it a "I was talking about X somewhere else, here are my thoughts", no mention of the other person at all, work for you? Or even shearing the suggestion of conversation out of it at all: "I was reading about X somewhere else, here are my thoughts"?