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

[gryphynshadow.livejournal.com]

I've seen people arguing on facebook about politics a lot; it seems that politics gets people's dander up, so to speak. Most of what I see are straight white men arguing that things aren't so bad, there's no war on women, and that people trying to call out issues in the world are idealistic/socialist/fascist/insult of the moment. I know that when I see these people posting, there's a bit of me that wants to tell them to sit down and shut up, but... I don't.

I can't tell if I don't because I think silencing dissent is bad or if it's because I don't want the confrontation. When and where I can, I'll argue the facts or defend an opinion...

I think telling someone to keep their opinions to themselves is, well, it's their right to be an asshole, and it's their right to not listen to dissent; I think doing so limits one's understanding of the world, creates an echo box and insulates ignorance and misunderstanding against the possibility of change. So in general, I'm against that.

I think so long as everyone involved in the discussion can be civil, and avoid personal attacks, then discussion is good, and telling people to be quiet and go away is just rude and bad manners, as well as perpetuating ignorance.

[feuervogel]

Heh; in my response to the email in which I was scolded for having opinions, I said that not allowing discussion or dissenting opinions leads to an echo chamber, which is a bad thing. (Even though both this person and I agree, on the larger scale, that modern industrial farming practices are horrible and need to change.)

I mostly roll my eyes at the ultra-conservative stuff that rolls across my facebook feed (though there isn't much of that, thankfully). The anti-gay stuff is more annoying, but mostly I ignore it, because I don't have time to argue on facebook with people I went to high school with.

If you already have a very sheltered view of the world, and your only source of information on topic X is from one side (and good lord there's a lot of misinformation and pseudoscience and anti-science garbage in the anti-industrial-farming, slow foods, etc movement), living in your sheltered echo bubble is akin to being a Fox News viewer.