If I reason on trivial things that is because those things are not trivial to me
I - Introduction
I have the terrible habit of being unnervingly concise. As the son of old-school print journalists, that comes with the territory. You see, I learned how to write at school, but my parents taught me how to write *well* (in my native language). The newsroom trained them on the importance of writing correctly and succinctly. Their whole lives were dictated by how many characters they could fit in whatever shape the editor reserved for them.
I embraced their religion, and no amount of effort seems sufficient to make me a wordy writer. For most of my life, that was more useful than harmful. A lot of what I wrote had a defined length, I even worked for a newspaper for a while. And tiny stories were more likely to be read by whoever I wanted to impress.
That works well for fiction. A short story stipulates its own context according to which its sentences are meant to be evaluated -- the inner rules of a possible world. The reader shifts their assumptions from reality to what is true in the context of the story. Ultra concise fiction works because, in fiction, that which is not allowed or stipulated does not exist, and that which does not exist cannot have concepts attached to it. A forced analysis can surmise whatever the interpreter wants, but the operation is more transparent and fragile. Of course, fiction and reality are intrinsically connected, and it is valid to interpret fiction through the lens of reality. But that is a more laborious operation, which is neither as quick nor as compulsory as it is for non-fiction.
That way of writing served me well for many years but is woefully inadequate for the vivid dynamic of online discussions. Even considering that everyone is susceptible to communication mishaps, I can no longer ignore that I am a particularly prolific offender. Whenever I'm "let loose", I seem to anger people. That wouldn't be surprising if I held positions that are, by their very nature, hateful. But the reality is that, when those events occur, in the majority of cases I am in agreement with those I offended. When people breathe for a second, they usually realize that I can't possibly be the awful person they believe I am. But the reality is that I cannot expect people to take a breather online. Literally stating only what I wish to say is simply not an option, and failing to understand this essential feature of online debate is both irresponsible and unintelligent, as that which is both negative and unstated will be interpreted as an implicit endorsement. The opposite also occurs, with some readers assuming a positive interpretation of what is not explicitly stated. But that is a discussion of communication defects, so I won't spend much time describing felicitous interactions. In any case, adversarial interpretations tend to draw more support, especially when charged with emotion.
In ideal circumstances, if a man named *George* utters the phrase "I enjoy strawberry ice cream the most", that would only be taken as a harmless preference. In online discussions, the same phrase might be interpreted as an implication that butter pecan ice cream is inherently immoral, leading to a negative appraisal of George's morals. When the subject is more sensitive than ice cream, that can be highly distressing. For one or two years, I have been more stringent about the kind of subject I never comment on. Unfortunately, sometimes I don't recognize what are the implicit themes of a discussion, and, in my impetus to respond to the request, I put myself in the center of a whirlwind of resentment.
It's frustrating that I can't comment on things I feel strongly about.
Going back to the problem of being concise. When one fails to take into account all the implicit contexts of an interaction, one may feel that simply addressing what is on the surface is enough. That is false. Unlike fiction, in online discussions that which you do not say very much exists. Readers will scrutinize your words for signals of **things** they either hate or love. Indications that you belong to a group that harmed them or signals that you're an ally. Failing to provide identifiable marks of allegiance may lead to undue projection and unpleasant interactions. The propensity for mistakes in communication never ceases to amaze me. I make them too. Of course, I do, and probably more than most. Since an early age, I have been haunted by these mishaps.
II - Social mishaps
Like the day I almost killed someone because I didn't understand sarcasm
My aunt's gated community had a deep, big swimming pool. My father had invited a friend of his to enjoy a day in the sun, and with my father's friend came his kid. I don't remember our ages at the time, I estimate we were somewhere around 12 or 13. I can't say for certain. At some point, they asked my father's friend: "Can your son swim?". His response was sarcastic, which later I learned was obvious to everyone but myself. "Bobby? Oh yeah, he's practically a dolphin, a real Olympic swimmer!", he said. Young me took his words at face value. Hours later, I thought it would be funny to throw Bobby in the pool. A harmless prank, right? Bobby was a great swimmer!
His reaction was puzzling. Bobby was down, his hands desperately caressing the surface from the inside as if it were made of glass. He never tried to poke his hand up into the air. The whole thing was completely silent and unreal. There was an odd beauty to it. I kept looking at him, trying to understand what was going on. His facial expressions were large and bizarre, yet strangely peaceful. Like a scream in slow motion. Not at all what I would expect from someone in pain. It never occurred to me that he was drowning, not for one second. This is not how people drown in the movies. Two adults were sunbathing on the other side. One of them noticed something wrong, went into the pool, and rescued Bobby. It's been about 30 years, and that kid hates me to this day. I don't blame him. I swear I'm not a psychopath.
Or the time as a teenager when I mistakenly went to a party I wasn't invited to.
My classmate looked at me, puzzled, and said for all to hear, "@lou, Whatta fuck are you doing here?". The baked pasta was completely dry, I had to scoop sauce from the bottom with the ladle. I asked myself "Why's there never enough sauce?". That night always comes back to me as an omen of future social inadequacies.
Or when I drank a few beers and forgot to fit a negative in a phrase that ended up expressing the opposite of what I wanted (that cost me a lot). The numerous times someone asked me to say the truth, and, to their despair, I did. All jokes people took seriously because due to my straight face and unaltered tone of voice.
I wonder if "normal people" have any idea of how wrong things can get when someone as inept as myself tries to say anything delicate. You may think that, knowing that, it would be easy to avoid bad situations. But I sometimes cannot distinguish between what is delicate and what is not.
At this point, you may be tempted to ask "Were you tested for autism?". The answer is yes and the result was negative. My doctor says I'm [schizoid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder), but I think my psychotherapist disagrees. So take that as you will. I am ADHD and bipolar for sure. That much is clear.
Writing this, in the back of my mind, I can't help but wonder how you're trying to place me. "Okay, I get it, but what do you really believe in?", "What side are you on, buddy?". That's fair. Sometimes people think I'm a covert right-wing, or worse, a "rationalism absolutist". I definitely sound a little too Cartesian to easily convey the reality that I'm a progressive left-wing. I bought my first book of informal logic about 25 years ago, and I did that because I had tremendous difficulty understanding what people meant when they vehemently defended their points of view. Sometimes I had a feeling for a point, but I had no idea why some arguments felt more persuasive than others. Social situations were hard enough, and, back then, the study of logic assisted me in navigating some of the argumentative aspects of social interaction. I wasn't using it to oppress anyone, nor did I think emotion was irrelevant. To me, reading basic informal logic was no different from reading Freud or Jung. It was a tool to acknowledge some aspects of reality. It was part of my life education. That was long before alt-right assholes weaponized logic-sounding buzzwords to dismiss their adversaries. In recent years, it was disheartening to see the tool that helped me tremendously being vilified because "rational" absolutists coopted its vocabulary as a tool for bigotry. Suddenly, I couldn't use it explicitly anymore. I mean, I still use it, of course. Everyone does. But I'm ashamed of it. I can no longer wear the glasses that allowed me to see.
Back to our central problem, there are many benefits to writing at length. First, by providing a greater amount of words you make it more difficult for the reader to circumscribe your words to the vocabulary of a specific group. Second, through length and reiteration, you knowingly or accidentally redirect the reader's biases toward the positions you actually hold. Third, you preventively address potential sources of miscommunication by touching on more aspects of the theme, allowing the reader to get a better understanding of your allegiances and worldviews. Fourth, writing at length may lead you to add personal details, reminding the reader that you are a person too.
A few months ago I wrote a review on /r/destructivereaders. I felt it had a decent length and provided enough notes for the writer. I didn't understand why it was removed by the mods, so I asked. They told me it was too short. That puzzled me, my critique was longer than others that were approved. No problem, I did it again, and this time I wrote everything that came to mind. I felt really stupid putting my raw thoughts online. But, because I'm an obsessive freak, of course, I edited it. A lot. In the end, it was quite a decent review, and the writer thanked me profusely. He clearly found use for my unfiltered thoughts. Writing like this felt so wrong, it was like my mother was by my side, shaking her head and fixing my commas. Verbosity feels like a crime to me. But it works. I don't know if that is noticeable, but this very post is an attempt to avoid being concise.
III - Nuance
These last few days, I meditated on the issue of nuance in online discourse. As Google defines it, nuance is "a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound". Under that definition, it is difficult to understand why nuance can be so negative and controversial. Shouldn't the ability to appreciate issues in a nuanced way be considered intellectually honest and innately beneficial? I used to think so, but now I have doubts.
In online discourse, unqualified nuance may be valuable for something that does not need to observe an overwhelming binary nature (for example: a discussion about our favorite ice cream flavors). However, online spaces are inherently chaotic, and it is impossible to control the ramifications of our statements. That is also true for real-life gatherings, but, in those cases, there are often social/personal connections, as well as implicit cultural parameters that allow nuance to arise without causing as much havoc. Although that, of course, occurs in real life, I would argue that those situations are preventable to a higher degree than that of online debates.
For instance, I would be wary of adding nuance to certain events of WWII if I couldn't tell for sure there were no Nazis in the audience. The natural conclusion is that some issues should never be given any nuance in online debates.
I wish to counter that with a less drastic alternative that takes us back to my main thesis. On sensitive subjects with an overwhelming binary nature that must be neither denied nor mitigated (such as victim vs perpetrator), nuance is permissible ***if and only if*** the writer dedicates enough length to acknowledge the importance and truthfulness of the binary system while addressing the implications of the nuanced view they provide in a way that is amenable to the emotions, life experiences, and knowledge of those who are directly invested in the theme.
Additionally, length itself serves as an indication of effort. This has the rhetorical effect of showing to the reader that, in the event that your reasoning is both flawed and insensitive, at the very least you made an attempt to respect their emotions and traumas that are in direct proportion to how many words were used to convey your message.
I'm not entirely sure why humans have a natural tendency to equate brevity of speech with rudeness and disrespect, but that is an undeniable phenomenon. It seems that even the most loquacious types become terse when pissed off, which makes for a great contrast that is easy to interpret. However, some people are laconic by nature, and their natural way of communicating can be misinterpreted as being constantly upset.
In that case, the terse or introverted have two options: (1) mask as an extrovert by simply using more words than they would naturally do, or (2) cease to discuss any sensitive topics. Option **2** requires less energy but is dependent on the introvert's ability to correctly identify when a topic is sensitive and why. Option **1** does not require that but is utterly laborious as it would lead them to always write at length about any topic, regardless of how mundane and uncontroversial it seems.
Ultimately, there is not a perfect solution, nor should we expect one. Human exchanges are inherently contentious, and it would be naive to hope for the complete elimination of its unfortunate accidents. That said, it is better to be cautious. Some topics are seldom worthy of debate and are more likely to accommodate an attitude of sentimental welcoming and support. The amount of mistakes in identifying these topics suggests that doing so is more complex than it initially seems. It is not enough to have a mental list of thorny themes since even a harmless subject may have concealed seeds of intense trauma and discord. As of now, I don't have a solution for this problem, so an excess of caution is the only recommendation I can give. I may write more about this in the future.
IV - Compassion
I previously stipulated the concept of "compassionate interpretation" (CIP). That was meant as an emotional complement and development of the [principle of charitable interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity). While interpretative charity recommends interpreting arguments in a way that maximizes their truth and rationality, CIP goes beyond by also recommending a preference for interpreting arguments to maximize the morals of the author. Going back to my previous example, a compassionate interpreter should refrain from concluding that George's statement, "I enjoy strawberry ice cream the most", is an implication that the author believes that "butter pecan ice cream is inherently immoral". Other interpretations are available which puts the author's morals in a better light. So I might, instead, assume that George is a fan of tart flavors due to his high tolerance of acidic tastes. Or maybe that was the favorite flavor of his beloved grandfather, and every time George eats strawberry ice cream, he unconsciously brings forth those affective memories and sensations.
My first take on CIP was lacking in many ways. Chiefly, I didn't elaborate on the cases in which it is inadvisable. That will be the subject of another post, but, for now, it suffices to state that there are many situations where CIP should not be applied, or, at the very least, it should be applied with many caveats. However, the core of the message remains: while the principle of charitable interpretation is conducive to propositional resolution, compassionate interpretation is essential to also achieve amenable emotional resolutions.
Back to the subject of conciseness, it is important to highlight that compassionate interpretation can hardly be achieved by employing the precise amount of words necessary for composing an argument. That is to say, it is not sufficient to state the premises, the connection between them, and how they lead to a conclusion. It is the author's task to take into account the need to facilitate the compassionate interpretation of their own contribution, as well as compassionately interpreting the responses to their content. This means populating their writing with [phatic expressions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression) that provide an excess of affective context, serving to establish or maintain social relationships. It also means inferring or inflating whatever phatic expressions their interlocutor provides, as well as preferring the interpretations that highlight their moral virtues and positive attitudes.
V - Discursive recursion
This is a meta article. I am talking about features of online discussions while making a contribution to online discussion. That presents a problem since it is inevitable for this very piece I write to be judged by the same standards I put forth, harming its credibility. In its weaker form, that reaction may evoke an [appeal to hypocrisy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque). When valid, it highlights a relevant contradiction. To avoid a self-defeating argument, I must clarify that my recommendations, implicit or otherwise, are nothing more than personal observations, and should not be taken as all-embracing prescriptions to improve every interaction, context, or situation.
It is neither practical nor enjoyable to always write in a completely defensible way, and an excess of elaboration could alienate potential readers. The overzealous adoption of off-the-shelf discursive guidelines is at the origin of every [fallacy man](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9), which is someone who uses fallacy names like cards in Magic the Gathering instead of applying them to the refinement of their own arguments.
Nevertheless, meta-discourse often invites sound commentaries of a recursive nature. As they say, "It's turtles all the way down", and the phenomenon I call "recursive problematization" can be extenuating. To avoid being caught in a descending spiral of accusations, at some point, we must take others' experiences, knowledge, memories, trauma, and reasoning in good faith. That is not only something we should do as compassionate human beings, it is also a practical necessity. The determination of if and when problematization loses its utility is personal and subjective, and there can be no hard rules for that. But it is important to highlight that, without an endpoint, discursive recursion leads to increasingly difficult, miserable, sometimes even unintelligible interactions.
VI - Conclusion
Before reaching the conclusion, it is of the utmost importance for me to make it abundantly clear that, when I talk about conciseness, this should not be interpreted as an exclusion of any and all social mishaps I and others cause.
From now on, I will try to be more comprehensive and loquacious for subjects that appear sensitive. But I won't do as comment on any internet forum. Doing so might be perceived as a response to someone, explicit or otherwise. That is inherently contentious. The amount of context is often overwhelming, even more so because English speakers seem to have another brain only to scrutinize language for microscopic signs of alignment. I find that brilliant and impressive, but also scary.
This blog should serve as a handy repository of ideas to which I can link those who would be otherwise perplexed by my apparently unorthodox views.
Although writing a blog invites a similar level of scrutiny, at the very least I'm not addressing anyone in particular, nor am I inadvertently contributing to a particular dispute. And, if anything I write sounds like a concealed answer to someone, I must preemptively inform the reader that this will never be the case. Some things I read trigger an intellectual motion, an interest in understanding and discussing a subject. So I may be writing as a consequence of an interesting intellectual proposition, or elaborating on a recently discussed theme that is dear to me. But that doesn't mean that I am focusing on anyone in particular, nor do I wish to disqualify or make covert put-downs to anyone, in any of the platforms I contribute to.
To avoid this inaccurate perception, as well as many other communication mishaps, I chose to disengage with sensitive social media posts. In that context, my views are often diluted, boxed, and integrated into hurtful interpretations. It's heartbreaking. In an effort to avoid any more exhausting interactions, I will link you to this realm — my little fictional world where it's okay to relax, take a breather and try to empathize with another human being who, regrettably, hasn't fully mastered the art of not sounding like a robot.