Discussing ideas, not people

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: In informal writing “you” is actually the preferred form to specifically address the reader and "one" is used only when you want to address a person in general but not specifically the reader. This is considered good practice in general. In formal writing the latter might be preferred to the former because the former can come across as accusatory. But this is really the only circumstance to use "one" as opposed to "you." Generally, except in very formal writing, "one" comes across as rather pretentious or old fashioned. It puts distance between the reader and writer which is seen as a bad thing making “you” the preferred term to use.

Same goes for so called “softening” phrases like I believe, I feel or I think. These phrases do not inspire confidence in the reader, In fact they do the exact opposite. Their use causes the reader to question the author’s authenticity and honesty. These words make the writer sound unsure of themselves and the topic discussed. It also forces the writer to overuse pronouns and that’s not effective writing.

Sources? This seems like pure bullshit.

(Sorry for being blunt, I figured it would inspire authenticity haha)

Manu wrote:
Sources? This seems like pure bullshit.

(Sorry for being blunt, I figured it would inspire authenticity haha)

General knowledge from college....

But if you insist.

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/one-versus-you

Look the rest up yourself! Lol

Speaking writing technique

General knowledge from college....

But if you insist.

is provocative, and I know you're clever enough to know it.

I actually agree with your position on writing style, but now whilst defending or explaining it to Manu, you're taking cheap shots.

I bring it up now, not as an attack, but an as example of (for all the absence of the word "You" or "One") it is now a criticism of people, not discussion of ideas. (which is exactly what this discussion is about. In fact, I am so confident you are so clever that you have only done this to serve as an example that I am probably ruining it by trying to point it out or explain it)

Communication is a slippery worm, I'm sure [strike]you[/strike] one can enjoy many pages of this thread trying to pin it down and formulate rules on how to manage it, with nothing to show for it but frustration at the end.

I guess 'you' can be taken either way, and so it will depend on the context more. If the context is argumentative about an idea, then perhaps avoiding the use of 'you' in that circumstance is much more efficient at avoiding misunderstanding - unless an attack is meant in which case its ideal. So again we're at this place of people abusing the freedoms afforded causing everyone to suffer under specificity or rules and laws. It goes back to genuine intent, if your aiming for clear communication then it serves to keep it clear by avoiding that elevated ambiguity of things like 'you'. And so to softening language works in that scenario as well I reckon, to assist in clarity.... and if the reader doesn't know how to process an appearance of honesty then there is not much anyone can do about that anyway for they'll probably get argumentative whichever way it goes if it does not agree.

Provocative, james? What? That was not provocative.

This is one of those rules that i personally dont worry too much about. I respond to posts with my honest impressions. Most of the time that means i discuss content but every once in awhile it means i tell someone the impression that i have of them, personally. I couldnt begin to formulate a set of rules that effectively delineates when its appropriate to cross that line, but i think i walk the line pretty well. If i dont, i expect you all to tell me. Oh wait, you cant. You can never tell me when im being a jerk no matter how much of an insufferable jerk i am, because that would violate the rule of discussing ideas and not people. Win-ning :laugh:

OB1Shinobi wrote: This is one of those rules that i personally dont worry too much about. I respond to posts with my honest impressions. Most of the time that means i discuss content but every once in awhile it means i tell someone the impression that i have of them, personally. I couldnt begin to formulate a set of rules that effectively delineates when its appropriate to cross that line, but i think i walk the line pretty well.

I feel the same way, which is why this rule tends to strike the wrong cord with me. I feel it is simply more organic to be holistic during conversation, and that means discussing people as well. It can be done without being insulting, and I do agree you walk that line quite well.

All to often it is the ideas some have of other people that become the subject of discussion. These ideas are hopelessly skewed due to the limiting nature of this medium but that does not stop them from drawing conclusions and then stalking their quarry endlessly in the name of misplaced justice.

OB1Shinobi wrote: This is one of those rules that i personally dont worry too much about. I respond to posts with my honest impressions. Most of the time that means i discuss content but every once in awhile it means i tell someone the impression that i have of them, personally. I couldnt begin to formulate a set of rules that effectively delineates when its appropriate to cross that line, but i think i walk the line pretty well. If i dont, i expect you all to tell me. Oh wait, you cant. You can never tell me when im being a jerk no matter how much of an insufferable jerk i am, because that would violate the rule of discussing ideas and not people. Win-ning :laugh:

Dont worry Ob1, I will always tell you when your being a jerk
You can always return it too

With religion comes beliefs.
With belifs comes convictions.
With convictions comes attachment to ideas.
With attachment to ideas comes feeling personally attacked when an idea you are attached to is criticized.

So it is tricky to be religious (or even philosophical on many things) and know how to manage your ego identity apart from ideas that come with it, to be able to talk about things with those with a different view without eventually feeling offended or attacked. But I think this is the point of practicing intelligent humility. ("Intelligent" is the keyword in that term here).

How do you define intelligent humility?

Intelligent humility I would define as humility with awareness of what is most practically necessary to be open-minded about, or to be aware enough to know (or learn) what you don't know, as opposed to just having humility blindly for the sake of coming off socially virtuous and being a pushover of psychological manipulation.

So how do we come to consensus on what is "most practically necessary to be open minded about"?

To my understanding, this seems like something determined individually and case by case.

Proteus wrote: To my understanding, this seems like something determined individually and case by case.

Like most things, eh?

But, I think you hit the nail on the head. Have the ability to admit, at least to oneself, that you are not a god, and thus aren't the be all and end all, the all knowing omnipotent being. Discuss the idea, even if you don't agree with it, with the person, rather than discussing against the person, because oftentimes that devolves into discussing the person, rather than the idea.

Proteus wrote: To my understanding, this seems like something determined individually and case by case.

Hmm, so if it's completely subjective and subject to disagreement without a means of resolution, how is the suggestion constructive at all?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Proteus wrote: To my understanding, this seems like something determined individually and case by case.

Hmm, so if it's completely subjective and subject to disagreement without a means of resolution, how is the suggestion constructive at all?

Not all things can be resolved through mere social exchanges. Many of those said things are often seeds planted that later grow on their own when the time comes that makes an understanding or realization happen.

elizabeth wrote: Dont worry Ob1, I will always tell you when your being a jerk
You can always return it too

We all need somebody to shove

Proteus wrote: With religion comes beliefs.
With belifs comes convictions.
With convictions comes attachment to ideas.
With attachment to ideas comes feeling personally attacked when an idea you are attached to is criticized.

So it is tricky to be religious (or even philosophical on many things) and know how to manage your ego identity apart from ideas that come with it, to be able to talk about things with those with a different view without eventually feeling offended or attacked. But I think this is the point of practicing intelligent humility. ("Intelligent" is the keyword in that term here).

Do you think people primarily discuss how such and such broke the rules because of their unhealthy attachments to the rules? Yet are they not breaking the rules (about discussing ideas not people) in doing so?

Is it a sign of malice or mental illness? Or something else.