Discursive dysfunction...

[buggery]

One-question poll behind the cut!


[Poll #816365]

(Yes, I had a lovely birthday. Hopefully I will catch up on my friends page soon...)

Comments

[impactbomb.livejournal.com]

I'd probably apologize for offending them and ask for clarification in the same comment.

Unless their comment was along the lines of "HOW COULD YOU SAY SUCH A THING YOU [insert appropriate term here]!!!" in which case, yes, I would ignore it, because there are certain comments that it's better to ignore, because, while one might be wrong in doing so, one can generally tell when they're actually approaching the conversation raising a legitimate objection or just trying to stir up an argument.

Once upon a time I'd have responded angrily to say "What the hell do you know about me?"

Nowadays I try to cut people more slack; I wouldn't want my views trampled on just because I feel strongly about something if I put some thought into replying as such, so why would I do that to someone else?

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

You've said this very well; I didn't pick an answer in the poll because I agree that it depends on whether you can see passion or simply provocation.

[minim_calibre]

Mull my response overnight, and then request clarification/more information, hopefully in a respectful fashion.

[darthhellokitty.livejournal.com]

Depends on whether or not it's reasonable - I mean, if someone objects to my posting slash, the hell with them; if I said something that could be taken as an ethnic or religious slur I'd edit it and thank them for the head's-up.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of torn between the second and fourth one, to be honest. It depends on the tone of the post, what my entry was about, and how lazy I feel at that moment in time. And how likely it is that someone on my flist might get offended by the post and respond. It's variable.

[suzycat.livejournal.com]

It's very much a So Much Depends... kind of question. I pretty much agree with all the posters thus far.

[thecaelum.livejournal.com]

Hrm. A lot of this depends on the specifics of the situation. Assuming the commenting person was clear about what was offensive (although maybe not why):

- If I know the commenting person and/or value their opinion, then I would apologize and correct the offense. If I have an established relationship with this person, chances are I am at least somewhat aware of their hot-button issues. I don't feel that I need to know exactly why it offended them, that it did is enough.

- If I did not realize at the time that my statement(s) could be seen as offensive to a reasonable person, but now I see that they could be, I would apologize and correct the offense. Regardless of how well I know the commenting party.

- If this issue concerns a closely held personal ideology, then this gets sticky. Example, I absolutely despise Bush. Sometimes I discuss this. Someone else may find that to be offensive. I don't particularly care. That doesn't mean I intend to dive into a room filled with Bush supporters and start ranting. It does mean that if one finds me and is offended by my stance, I am not going to soothe their ruffled feathers any more than I would expect mine to be soothed in the aforementioned room.

- If I find the matter of offense to be unreasonable on the part of the commenting person, then chances are I am going to shrug it off.

[weaverandom.livejournal.com]

My answer may be inaccurate. I claim as excuse the fact that I've been drinking for, uh, seven hours straight now.

However. Your icon. It is a thing of LOVE. I wouldn't have bothered to click on the cut were it not for the love of that icon. See, icons totally matter, in le land of le el jay.

*sozzles off elsewhere*

[cereta.livejournal.com]

My usual "it depends" ;). If I was in chat with someone whose perspective I generally trust, I'd probably run it by them first, and then respond accordingly. Otherwise, unless I thought they were totally wacked (in which case I'd say something like, "I'm honestly not sure how you're getting that from what I wrote"), I'd probably (a) ask for clarification, (b) explain that it was not my intention to create X reading, or (c) apologize and explain that it was done in ignorance.

Or somethin' like that ;).

[amphetamine42.livejournal.com]

I'd ask for clarification without immediately backing down -- until you understand the person's whole position, you have nothing to apologize for. Once you've heard their reasoning, then you can apologize and/or discuss where you're coming from.

[vange.livejournal.com]

Totally ask for clarification. Damn autism makes me unaware when I offend someone in real life half the time (apparently glaring=bad sign). On the internet if you don't sit down and explain things to me in small words I'll just just boggle. "Wait... feelings? People's feelings are hurt when I suggest replacing the Japanese people with robots? Well I'll be."

[unovis.livejournal.com]

I answered, but yes, it would depend on the nature of the comment, the attitude of the commentor -- though I've apologized to some utter bitches with groundless, grandstanding objections in the past.

And Happy Birthday!

[spykeraven.livejournal.com]

I'd sleep on it. I seem to do my best thinking when asleep. If I still remembered it when I woke, then, depending on the issue I'd respond by asking for clarification or by writing an apology or by writing a fiery personal email to the person.

[thete1.livejournal.com]

Since I know which comment you're talking about... yeah. It was a reasonable *enough* comment given what had been posted, and -- heh. It's *feedback*, dammit. You gotta respond.

Especially since it wasn't just a "RARGH YOU SUCK," but a "hey, this thing you wrote was fucked up."

Of course, we don't know what the author's history with the deleted commenter was... but still. Shady.

[kkglinka.livejournal.com]

Like others have pointed out, it depends, but I usually default to Aesop's wisdom on the matter, in The Man, the Boy and the Donkey which concludes: you'll miss your own objective if you try to please everyone else.