I'm so sorry Jessica. I'm sorry that I offended anyone. I am very sorry that I chose my words poorly.

I'm not trying to pick on you either, Steph, but I think you've demonstrated why we sometimes pretend these issues are less important than they are.

Maybe this attitude -- and I don't mean that you, Wolfram, are responsible for the larger problem; I'm using your statement as what I feel is a good, clear example -- is part of the larger problem with the perceived hurt feelings around the proliferation/anti-proliferation debate.

Why do we keep calling them the "perceived" hurt feelings? There have definitely been hurt feelings around the proliferation debate, and you're right, it's precisely because people take what they post, and what people respond to their posts, personally.

Maybe some people are too quick to interpret criticism of their position on something as criticism of them as a person.

Also there's a huge difference between criticizing a position (i.e. calling it wronger than a wrong thing), and characterizing a post (i.e. calling it rude or inflammatory). And I don't think I'm splitting hairs.

I'm not trying to pick on you either, Steph,

It's cool; I can take it. (I would smiley emoticon here if I used emoticons.) t edit I don't feel like you're picking on me, so no worries!

Why do we keep calling them the "perceived" hurt feelings?

I used that term because one of -- I think -- Laga's posts from the other day is stuck in my head, where she said "it seems like there are a lot of hurt feelings."

But maybe I should have used the term "perceived insults" instead.

Also there's a huge difference between criticizing a position (i.e. calling it wronger than a wrong thing), and characterizing a post (i.e. calling it rude or inflammatory). And I don't think I'm splitting hairs.

That distinction is true, but I still don't think that calling a post rude or inflammatory means that the person is being called rude or inflammatory.

Cheesebutt.

t /Back to playing catch-up

I think we all need to take Meyer's Briggs tests or something because we seem to have a feeling/thinking divide!

(I would smiley emoticon here if I used emoticons)

Ha, ditto!

But maybe I should have used the term "perceived insults" instead.

Yeah, now I get what you meant, and you're right.

Thanks, Nilly!

Is that something we want to have a FAQ link to?

this:

Someone who posts in a rude and inflammatory matter, is (at least when making that post), a rude and inflammatory person.

and this:

I know this because if someone called any one of my posts, over my 5+ years here, rude and inflammatory I would take it very personally.

are two different concepts.

And, with no judgment on this particular situation, one thoughtless or inadvertent comment does not change that person's personality. If that were the case, everyone who ever did a ((hug)) would be immediately classified as a warm fuzzy person. A post that someone perceived as rude does not necessarily make the poster a rude person, especially if there is difference as to whether the post was rude at all.

Why do we keep calling them the "perceived" hurt feelings?

Well, I would say perceived because I don't know if Laga's feelings were hurt or not. But you perceived that her feelings might be.

When Laga wrote

I'm irritated because the majority of posts in lightbulbs are about the proliferation argument. I feel there are no new points to be made in that regard but if I want to read the posts specifically about the thread being proposed I have to comb through the broader argument to find them. Also I do get a sense of a lot of hurt feelings and it makes me uncomfortable knowing that people feel hurt. One of the main reasons I love it here is because people are compassionate and I hate to watch that break down.

she wrote her about her irritation at the redundancy of the arguments and her own sense of other's hurt.

Which is why I asked if people's feelings HAD been hurt.

I'm irritated by the proliferation discussion. But I'm never hurt by it.

it turns out I still find it pretty offensive

Jessica states clearly she is offended by Laga's remark. And I am too. But I'm not hurt by it.

Hurt over a contentious disagreement isn't something I experience a lot. People are talking about hurt feelings. But what if, when we really examine it, it's not about being hurt, but about being offended or irritated. Which we have things in place to deal with already (offended is resolved, ideally, the way Jessica did and irritated? MARCIE or don't read the thread).

And, if we are really talking about worrying about OTHERS getting their feelings hurt? I mean, Wolfram, you kindly tried to ameliorate someone's hurt feelings when she herself never claimed such. Based on your understanding, you assumed she would be hurt and asked Jessica to defend her point of view and then disagreed with it. Is that part of the problem? People worried about others being hurt and trying to stop that from happening? When the other person might not be hurt at all?

One thoughtless or inadvertent comment does not change that person's personality. If that were the case, everyone who ever did a ((hug)) would be immediately classified as a warm fuzzy person. A post that someone perceived as rude does not necessarily make the poster a rude person, especially if there is difference as to whether the post was rude at all.

Yet I would call someone who hugged me a warm person. And I would call someone who insulted me a rude person. Their actual personality may have little to do with it. It becomes all about how I perceive them. And I perceive posters here by their posts. As I assume I am perceived.

Note: I actually find this discussion fascinating, even though I don't expect to change any minds. If my continued posts in this matter are grating, I'm sorry and I will stop.