plural & stuff
🦚

avatar from Floraverse


shel
@shel

I think something that's not talked about enough probably because it's very obvious and yet maybe we all forget this is that it feels really bad when someone is rude to you—even when you know that person is wrong or overreacting. We talk a lot these days about the value of the honest real kind versus the fake shallow nice but I think there is a value to nice.

There is a value in pausing and thinking about what you're about to say and if the way you're saying it is unnecessarily hostile or aggressive. Not because you're a bad person for feeling that way or being transparent about how you feel. But because it's nice when people make that slight effort to be nice to each other. It feels bad when someone is unnecessarily rude or mean to you, and it's nice when people choose to keep some of that to themselves and instead phrase things a little more diplomatically or neutrally.

Obviously, as an Autistic person, I am not setting a high bar here for people to do lots of dancing around things and indirectness and mind-reading nonsense. But there's just such a big difference between the neutral-nice "Man, I'm disappointed that this library doesn't have Goncharov on Blu-Ray. Can you order that for me?" versus the rude "this piece of shit library doesn't even have Goncharov on Blu-Ray. Order it." It's communicating the same thing but honestly the tone is just such a big difference! Neither of these is "kind" they're both complaints followed by directives, but one of them just feels a lot better to be on the receiving end of!

A nice thing about being a librarian whose supervisor is a former bartender is we just treat the library like a bar. If someone is being hostile or rude to us, we just kick them out. We talk back and tell them "don't talk to me like that or I'm not ordering Goncharov on Blu-Ray." It's a free service, we don't need any individual person to borrow any individual item. But like, most other people don't have that option. Most workers don't get to talk back to customers or bosses or clients. Also, even outside of a work situation, it just sucks when someone in public is rude to you in an unnecessary way. Like, I had someone sarcastically call me "little miss sunshine" for having a flat affect and neutral face. It's just rude and mean. Leave me alone. What's your problem. Sheesh, y'know?

Anyway, not expecting everyone to have the best social skills or anything, and I really do value candor and honesty and such. I just think sometimes it's worth it to avoid cuss words in some contexts.


nex3
@nex3

as someone who has spent a bunch of time explicitly teaching myself how to frame the stuff I say in a nice way in the way that Shel is talking about and: it gets results. Not necessarily in terms of "people doing what you want" (although sometimes that too), but mostly just in terms of people being happier when they interact with you and being nice back to you. It feels good!


NireBryce
@NireBryce

a lot of even neurotypical people this last decade+ seem to miss this, but the occasional (and often unrelenting) superficiality? that's the whole of The Point. I'm not saying this to like, make fun of people not getting it -- it's just, genuinely, how it works.

people put the effort in to 'do a nice thing', they have done nice thing, it not landing well doesn't really change that or the effort/thought/care. (<dropping into too-much-computer-touching-brain> it's protocol-layer stuff, not actual messaging.)

The subtle loss of that is like... akin to people not seeing the labor that goes into their goods, or the reason things cost more if they're well made, or why gifts are a thing still. It's just not a thing that's talked about, and you sort of have to trip over it. And it's fine that it's missed, but you'll understand the world a lot better if you just roll with it.

it's the only reason society works, in the end, so it's worth something imo even if it's annoying sometimes. It can change, but I think it's one of those things where even if it's not automatic to you, it's worth looking into.

Just... don't do the NGO internal politics thing where nice is used to lie to everyone's faces while justified anger is said to be divisive. But also don't confuse genuine/social nicety with that.


shel
@shel

Yes like exactly I want to emphasize that it's a morally neutral thing right. It's nice to have in the same way that clean bed sheets or a clean kitchen are nice to have. It's morally neutral to have or not have these things. But it is nice to have them when you can. There are many good reasons you can't have them sometimes and that's fine and morally neutral. You don't clean your bed sheets because it's the right thing to do you clean your bed sheets because you like the feeling of sleeping on clean bed sheets.

We are not nice to each other because it makes us better people we do it because we it feels good when people are nice and it feels worse when they are rude. Sometimes the situation doesn't fall for someone feeling good, but usually we're in a neutral situation and if you can be nice then, well, it's nice! To be able to do that! But if someone can't be nice, or can't keep their kitchen clean, that's not problematic. That's neutral.

This is in contrast to Kind which takes a lot more effort and actually does have some moral judgement along its axis. It's not a morally neutral term like nice is. "It's nice to have" isn't something you say about things you have to have, like clean water. But "unkindness" is a synonym for cruelty.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @shel's post:

I would say that's not so much being nice as it is the absence of being mean/rude.

Being mean takes effort, and so does being nice (imo), and I would say what you described is closer to neutral (which is fine)

I think that if you feel "uyggghhgg this fucking suuuucks" and then intentionally don't vocalize that and instead swallow that a little and say "Hey I have a suggestion to make this better" then that is called being nice

Yeah and sometimes it is too much effort which is why I do think it's morally neutral. It's nice for people to be nice in the way it's nice to have clean bedsheets but sometimes you don't have that and it's morally neutral

The Algorithm rewards engagement, and making people angry makes them engage, so everyone starts posting like they're pissed off and snarky, but it happens so slowly that nobody notices. Then those people (including me) come to a place like Cohost where people don't do that and it's a jarring but ultimately welcome change

Yeah, so much of that where everyone is very upset but there's no way to tell about what. One incident that turned me away from twitter for years (I know, that sounds like a good thing but it was twitter where I finally found other trans women so maybe not good to have spent years without that) was an argument that I'm pretty sure was between angry bigots insulting people like me and people like me firing back, but I honestly couldn't tell who was on which side because everyone had like 100 letters to say what they were saying which doesn't leave much space for anything but anger

I spend a lot of time wondering: "why are people so mean?" It makes me really happy to see someone address this, as trivial as it may be. I like this post a lot.

I have one question, though:

It's communicating the same thing

Is it really? Maybe I'm wrong here, so feel free to tell me why you disagree. But, to me, these two commands reflect completely different attitudes. The 'rude' one ("this piece of shit library...") is just so arrogant, entitled, and demanding. "I really don't care why the library doesn't have it, I just care that it's not immediately available to be served on a silver platter to me. Any possible explanation is irrelevant; your function is to serve me, and if you fail my expectations, you have no worth & do not deserve my respect. I'm more important than any other circumstance that could explain this failing." Meanwhile, the 'nice' one ("man, I'm disappointed...") acknowledges the disappointment, but doesn't assign blame to anyone. "I just got unlucky today. It's no big deal; after all, nothing's perfect. Let's fix this!"

I feel like many people default to the 'rude' response every time they are inconvenienced or do not understand the reasoning for something. These people fill me with visceral anger. So many wasted breaths are spent on this chest-thumping (particularly, but not exclusively, online). I hate how primitive and inconsiderate it is. I wish people would pause to evaluate the situation more often. We don't live in an optimal world. There will be problems and inconveniences. Embrace it! Humans are infinitely clever, and these inconveniences are really not so difficult to adapt to or work around if you're willing to endure a little discomfort.

Certainly, this isn't the most nuanced way to put all of this; simply accepting your fate isn't a great response to systemic issues. But there's a lot of energy wasted on trivial crap. And I hate it

really well put. it’s possible to ask for things in a way that doesn’t make other people feel worse, and someone being unwilling to go to that effort feels like a deliberate snub. ā€œchest-beatingā€ is exactly right—it’s an assertion of primate hierarchy. fuck that.

I think the messages intersect, i.e. they share a common bit of information that is communicated regardless, in this case that the person wants a book from the library and they want you to get it, but there is also an additional information that is sent by the person's attitude: how they feel about you, about the situation, etc.

Every "message" we send is a bundle of multiple messages, about a myriad of things.