NOTE TO LITERALLY THE ENTIRE INTERNET:
No thought is ever complete. There will always be holes to fill!
RESIST THE URGE TO FILL THOSE HOLES
If someone has said something which you largely agree with, especially if what they said aligns with your understanding of and goals towards an issue, then the LAST thing they need from you is someone playing devil's advocate. Nitpicking is annoying at best and, in a world where people are looking to drive wedges between allies, dangerous at worst.
1/2
If someone appears to be on your side broadly but hasn't specifically addressed your pet issue, that doesn't mean they don't know about your issue! They just haven't explicitly mentioned it.
If you'd like, take a "yes, and" approach. Increasing awareness of issues is always good (so long as they're real issues, of course).
Never, under any circumstances, should you take the omission of your fixation to mean they aren't on your side.
2/2
@TechConnectify My mother and I would have this issue where we'd find ourselves in an argument over something we both AGREE on. It's a weird place to be, like taking two completely different approaches to arrive at the same conclusion, and being upset over the differences in your paths, as though one was more valid than the other. I often wonder if it's because we'd rather win than be correct, and since there has to be a "loser" in the conversation for that to happen, it devolves into an argument.
It is all quite stupid and ultimately more harmful than good. We still catch ourselves doing this from time to time. I think it stems from being put in this position where you're used to having to fight and argue to have your point seen, and having an ally seems so foreign that when one shows up you start sparring with them because that's the default behavior.
@mauveavenger could be! Bottom line though we absolutely have to get better at recognizing when this is happening so that we can stop it.
So so so many pointless arguments turn friends into adversaries and allies into enemies. IMO it's adjacent to purity testing. Not exactly the same, but adjacent.
@mauveavenger @TechConnectify My family does this too. I call this as "getting the final word".
It's as if we agreed on the main issue, BUT have to get to say the "closing statement" in our own exact words, or otherwise we feel that we have not been heard and fully understood.
It includes starting each sentence with "But...". When I recognised this, I suggested the "Yes, and" approach. Still learning it myself!
Once again deleted a reply after writing it because really, who needs my uninformed opinion on that subject? You're welcome, internet.
How dare you ignore trans whales.
@TechConnectify I think it's also important to recognize that people can be on your side (i.e. their goals broadly align with yours) but still disagree with you on specific things (i.e. the specific ways of accomplishing those goals).
Sometimes - at least for me - particular omissions actually *are* intentional. Mainly because I'm trying to focus on one area and don't want my post to be turned into a post about something else.
I think people have a natural urge to "fill in the gaps" sometimes because it's the *one area* where they feel like they have power. (But agree with your point 100%)
"RESIST THE URGE TO FILL THOSE HOLES"
...you know the pun you're asking me to make here, right?
@TechConnectify taking a step back, I think it matters whether one is doing education / science communication / science, or advocacy.
If the latter, then yeah you want people to find a common ground and agree.
If the former, you actually want people to tell you you're wrong, so that you can both improve your understanding of the topic.
@TechConnectify Yes, never should you make someone feel bad for mostly being on your side.
But then again, I don't think "filling in holes" is such a bad thing. In fact, that's exactly what I want for me from the Fedi (am I weird? probably). I *love* to get nitpicked because it usually means I'm about to learn about someone's special interest.
And I love learning about that, just as I love sharing my special interests or weird oddly specific research. I don't want to attribute everything to autism and across that spectrum we likely have people who feel differently about that as well.
But I can't help to categorize this into autistic "love language" which is often about sharing information, esp. oddly specific one that's "filling in holes". And I/we often get perceived as wanting to "be right", but that's not the case. We want the *thing* to be correct, we don't have a personal stake in it: We want to be corrected as well, when we're wrong (even if only in details).
As with unsolicited advice, I love to get that. I've always thought that this must be solved differently, we need some way to tell people "hey, I like nitpicks and odd details or weird advice" vs. "pls, I just want to be let alone and focus on the main parts". Both are valid, but censoring one feels very neuronormative :/
@TechConnectify One person's nitpick is another person's main issue. What you're saying here kind of sounds to me like you assume that someone "largely agrees" with you, but you don't know that. I've come across many people who think they're on my side when they couldn't be more opposed to what I stand for and believe in.
🦇
@diligentcircle This post is about what to do when you assume someone is on the same page - not about making that assumption!
Discussions online require tact. If you're unclear, ask for clarification. But do so in a way which steers well clear of even potentially being received as adversarial.
@diligentcircle What you've just replied to me here sounds very much like a repackaging of the point I'm trying to make.
If you've got a nit to pick, first and foremost assess whether the person you're about to "well, actually..." might in fact know about it. Their omission of it doesn't mean they don't.
If you'd like to test this, absolutely go ahead! But be careful about how you do it. Lotta people making enemies of allies over silly miscommunications.
@TechConnectify I don't think "people making enemies of allies over silly miscommunications" is actually a thing. I think what you call "silly miscommunications" is far more likely to be a core disagreement of values and priorities.
🦇
Oh? That runs counter to so many conversations I have had, both in real-life and online.
There's a reason this meme exists.
@ErikUden I know! I do this, too.
The intent we show when responding matters a lot. It's all too easy to appear adversarial.
And what trips people up is that how you appear is the ONLY thing that matters to the other party.
@TechConnectify @ErikUden I’d be completely ok with a Mastodon client with a response interface where the “Delete” button is 3x larger than the “Post” button.
I often write a response, look at it for a minute, and then delete it without posting.
I said what I needed to say, but no reason to bother other people with it. Just hit “Favorite” and move on.
@TechConnectify Did you just call me annoying?
(Note that I'm not denying it.)
@TechConnectify the wording creates a false binary: don't respond, or be adversial
third option: respond in a constructive way, I think we do this most times, and I find a lot of value in that.
If I only respond to things I strongly disagree with and ignore those I agree with, I:
a) rarely have productive discussions
b) signal boost things I don't like
c) often take a hit to mental due to increased exposure and arguments
@TechConnectify I did read 2/2, I don't see the relevance. if anything it just brings in more false binaries like "on your side" as if conversations are some kind of fight
I didn't say "yes, and" because I genuinely disagree with the framing, content and conclusion. I also don't think increasing awareness of issues is always good, I steer well clear of news/politics in most cases and avoid posting them
only thing I agreed with is to be wary of wording badly and coming off as adversarial
@chlobes Hmm. Well, you responded to 1/2 which I'll just let that slide. But "yes, and" sounds precisely like the "third option" you described in your reply.
If you disagree with me, that's fine. But I will point out there's a lesson you could learn here. A misfire in communication happened somewhere.
This sounds like groupthink advocacy.
@TechConnectify I would like to have this as one of those lovely stickers.
Do not become a devil's advocate . it is not having a conversation if you just don't agree for sports.
Make your points. Respond in your words. Add your perspective.
And disagree with reasons.
I disagree. There's nothing wrong in being broadly on the same page while differing on some of the details. Talking about these things is a normal part of conversation, of which I take Mastodon to be an online expression. That's why I like this platform. To my mind, it's a source of strength to be able to use ideas effectively, rather than defending a position in a knee-jerk sort of way, as if it was too precious to survive in the outside world, That way lies groupthink.
@tomohiro_crtl I agree, but the original sin of the nitpicker that I want to address is assuming the thing they are nitpicking is complete to begin with.
Communication is hard. Textual communication doubly so. Short snippets of textual communication triply so!
Starting from a place of acknowledgement that a message is incomplete allows you to "yes, and" rather than take on an adversarial posture. And even just *appearing* to take on such posture produces the same result of an actual adversary.
@tomohiro_crtl you cannot stop a receiver from interpreting their own subtext when you send a message. This is why tact is important - good communicators have to be aware of this potential so they can minimize the receiver picking up on false subtext. And this is why good communication takes time and many more characters than I have here.
We're all communicators, though, when participating in social media. So we need to get better at understanding the limits of quick, snippy communication.
@tomohiro_crtl what I'm proposing is that more people take this to heart when looking at random posts.
They are not and cannot be complete thoughts.
So if your attempt to make them more complete could even *appear* as adversarial, it will be received as such. And, crucially, even if it's not received as such by the person you're talking to, it might be by outside actors wishing to weaponize disagreement and drive wedges which create unaligned factions.
This is complicated and it sucks.
Technology Connections
Mauve
Zeggo
Minister of Peace
M.S. Bellows, Jr.
RalfMaximus
Jay
Alioth Fox (but you can call me Daddy~)
Tergenev has moved
Nuki Raccoon: Fedi's Favorite Furry F***poster
Wolf480pl
Jicka
lj·rk
Shantell Powell
Solar Pierre
usenetnerd
Diligent Circle 丸
Erik Uden 🚩
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
Janne Moren
Thomas Sturm
paul
Kevin Smith
[HANDMAIDEN] xan
Carl (He/Him)
Kajico
Greg Bell
Cluster Fcku
Christen Lofland
chloe
VulcanTourist [MOVED]
Cookie & Oreo
Andy Airey
Thierna
Fardels Bear
Resolviendo la incógnita 🌐
Jason, Human, Average 
ezra 
Maltimore
Turi 
Adlangx
Tom Forsyth
Gabbo the wafrn dev guy