Discussion
Here's the thing about social media folks:
Post on your own feed = people who follow you and presumably want to know your thoughts will see it.
Reply to someone else's post = you are demanding attention from someone else, so you'd be well advised to check whether you are telling them something they likely already know.
Wanna share a thought based on what someone else said? Bare minimum, respect their expertise and acknowledge their contribution.
So. Many. Rules. If a human, not a bot, troll farm slave, or a bad faith fascist responds - even if they disagree - I'm happy. You be you. But maybe live & let live, you know?
@emilymbender
Obviously not my shite posters guide to the internets.
@emilymbender I get that a Lot of people *-splain to an extreme degree, especially on posts by marginalized people. As someone who's got both weird knowledge, and the "read the room"-ability of an Autist my size, I often can't tell what "most" people would know, tbh. I'm frequently asked to explain myself, and sometimes I probably overcompensate. If someone is blathering on pompously, by all means, check that, but maybe don't shoot first offenders, in case they're just clueless?
i think the solution to this is control over your replies
i know some social media allows you to just go in and hide responses you don't like
i think if this were implemented on mastodon we'd see a 90% drop in insipid predictable drama
@emilymbender Is there such a thing as a thought that is not based on what some else said? And why is it the case that I should acknowledge their expertise and contribution? What does this even look like, do I have to credit to Shakespeare every time I find someone protests too much or what are we talking about?
She is literally asking you to use your judgement to consider whether you are mansplaining, i.e. telling someone the basics (often incorrectly) of a thing they already know.
(And here you are: semi-socratically mansplaining citation practice to a full professor of linguistics)
@trochee I was not aware that I was explaining citation practice to anyone, pretty sure I usually know whether or not I am explaining something
@trochee What is the difference between semi-socratically asking and regular asking?
Socratically asking is when you know the answer already and think you can lead the other party into enlightenment.
But now I'm not so sure you're doing that
I do wish people would think about this difference more, but kinda for the opposite reason. that without algos, it's no imposition on others except your followers re what you post. a reply is different. generally it's what might need to be moderated. but people should be tolerant of unwanted replies as long as they are done in good faith and don't persist after someone requests that they stop. the accepted downside of a big following should be more slightly annoying replies.
Sorry I disagree.
Sure, be polite and kind is good but don't give the impression that it is somehow taboo to reply to someone.
That's a blog with comments disabled.
Are you an academic by any chance? Living in some privileged remote ivory tower?
@emilymbender If it's on my feed it's fair game.
Posting on the socials is for attention, blogs are not hard.
For expertise I'll read something peer reviewed from an institution I trust, not a person tooting brandishing a sticker.
@emilymbender I believe you are confusing social media and micro-blogging with a blog.
@emilymbender Nada.
Post on your own feed = Be prepared for anything.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
@emilymbender I'm sorry about the replies you're getting that illustrate exactly the problem you're suggesting a solution to here. The perspectives are not necessarily invalid, but the tone of many posts screams 'you're not the boss of me'. What are we, 5?
> Reply to someone else's post = you are demanding attention from someone else
@mention someone and we are, for sure. Do people always see replies that don't @mention them? Maybe only if someone on that service follows the person replying?