Virtual Rule #7: Stop and think (Part 1)
"Nearly all the faults or mistakes in conversation are caused by not thinking."
Emily Post
MARK
"I was drunk and angry and stupid."
MARYLIN
"And blogging."
MARK
"And blogging."
"I was drunk and angry and stupid."
MARYLIN
"And blogging."
MARK
"And blogging."
from The Social Network
When does a conversation end? Do we let the conversations we participate in end when we leave them or do we at times replay them over and over, keeping them alive and current? In the virtual word we live in, we can say things about people and even to people themselves in very indirect ways. Maybe we recall something we wish we had said during the conversation or maybe we were to chicken to say what we were really thinking so we "converse" virtually - indirectly - publicizing the private all behind the mask of the web. We get to say what we want to say but don't have to necessarily care about the response. This is dangerous.
Does there need to be two participating parties for there to be a conversation? At one time, yes I think there did but no longer is that the case. I blog. I blog to the entire world, in a way conversing with the world. The world does not respond, the world does not take whole notice but yet here I am jabbering (typing) along. I am conversing and though I am not CNN, Oprah, or Katie Couric - the reach of my words is not on that scale - nonetheless my blog of words is out there to be heard, to be read, to be commented on. If I go postal and type a bunch of ranting, raving, thoughtless, nonsensical drivel - I am not only being a poor writer, I am being a poor conversationalist. Using the web as a tool to aim words at a target who has no ability to participate is cowardly. This blog is part of my dialogue not with one specific individual but all. If I take private dialogue and post it publicly, I degrade the value of that dialogue and dilute away an intimate relationship.
Stop and think Emily tells us and that is true in all facets of life. We communicate in ways unthought of 50 years ago, even as little as 10 years ago. When we leave another with whom we have been speaking we must not take that private conversation and publicize it. If there is more to say, we save it for whom it needs to be said or we let it go all together. Integrity once damaged is an impossibility to completely restore; stop and think before throwing yours away.
Does there need to be two participating parties for there to be a conversation? At one time, yes I think there did but no longer is that the case. I blog. I blog to the entire world, in a way conversing with the world. The world does not respond, the world does not take whole notice but yet here I am jabbering (typing) along. I am conversing and though I am not CNN, Oprah, or Katie Couric - the reach of my words is not on that scale - nonetheless my blog of words is out there to be heard, to be read, to be commented on. If I go postal and type a bunch of ranting, raving, thoughtless, nonsensical drivel - I am not only being a poor writer, I am being a poor conversationalist. Using the web as a tool to aim words at a target who has no ability to participate is cowardly. This blog is part of my dialogue not with one specific individual but all. If I take private dialogue and post it publicly, I degrade the value of that dialogue and dilute away an intimate relationship.
Stop and think Emily tells us and that is true in all facets of life. We communicate in ways unthought of 50 years ago, even as little as 10 years ago. When we leave another with whom we have been speaking we must not take that private conversation and publicize it. If there is more to say, we save it for whom it needs to be said or we let it go all together. Integrity once damaged is an impossibility to completely restore; stop and think before throwing yours away.
No comments:
Post a Comment