Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lynn
Hello
Note: Post removed for the following site rules.
Copy-Paste: One or two lines at most of relevant text of material from other sites or sources and a link to the relevant text for further reading is allowed on the condition that the author is credited and the source linked is not a commercial site (promoting or selling goods or services). Quotes of religious texts such as the Bible or Quran must also be no more than one or two lines. Posts that quote or copy-paste more than one or two short lines of text will be removed or edited. Repeatedly breaching this rule will lead to warnings and possible Disciplinary Action.
Scaremongering: This is not permitted, what it means is posting information which may cause fear, or even panic amongst members, please remember we have vulnerable members and children here.
Please refrain from such discussions in going forwards.
Lynn
SF Admin
|
Is there a way that I can word the information posted that wasn't in a scaremongering way? I'm curious to hear your feedback. I have given a warning that it can be emotionally direct to prevent the vulnerable from reading as I was aware of what it could do, but would you like to speak of an agreement to allow a compromise between directness and gentleness?
It would be unpleasant to have such essential information removed due to wording it wrong. I understand I have flaws in this area. What exactly makes it scaremongering? What is the difference between compassionate warnings and scaremongering? Is there a list of qualities I can avoid or start using in my articles? Panic was certainly not my intention, though it could have been communicated that way.
Part of dealing with fear is being able to be aware of the cause of the problem, and I had simply lined up the possible causes and actions here. Unlike many scaremongering ads, I do not give people a narrow set of rules or actions they have to follow to calm their fear, but encouraged people to find their own ideas. I did not tell people they are utterly powerless without my help. I did not exaggerate the issue, and tried to calmly explain the possible extremes that a misunderstanding can create. I agreed that it was possible to interpret the issue that way due to the controversial nature of it, but that was not my intention. Maybe the title created a lot of preconceived notions about the nature of the article, and I could change it?
I worry that many areas of service cross the line into banning constructive criticism, and so many fields of service stay stagnant in their ability to change things. Hiding information that can reveal possible dangers in society calms people only in the short term. A monster of a problem that has no seen causes, and no possible ways to act on it is even more terrifying, and while it's not as easily seen, it creates true hopelessness and panic in the long term. I clarified the situation and ended it not in the way that was meant to create hopelessness, but to empower people to act on it.
Do you need me to tell people about how they can take it slowly? Do you need any number of reminders or calming sentences I can use to balance it out? What can I do? I did make it clear that I still deeply thought highly of people here, but I was just critiquing their actions here. Perhaps the use of sarcasm was going too far. Was that it? Not to say that your conclusions are wrong, but at the moment, this is my understanding that needs feedback from you.
I don't recall even using further texts to read, but more specifically common ideas that are used in several books and as a respect for its religious connotation, I capitalized it in a way that it looked like the title of a resource. You may have mistakenly believed that some themes were actually books, or am I wrong? Maybe my memory was foggy and I've forgotten it, so please enlighten me if otherwise.
I would have appreciated if I could have been PMed first next time so I can create the essential edits to the articles myself. I understand that my service here is a teamwork effort between me and feedback from here, so to prevent further mistakes, I would need to hear from you the specific areas of dislike you had to clarify things well. Thank you for your service Lynn and I respect anyone who recognizes that I also have many things to learn. If I make another mistake, then please inform me quickly again.
My vision for my own lightwork here was to create courage, not fear. Courage is not created in the absence of fear, but when fear is there but the problem is faced anyway. All I wanted was for problems to be faced through problem solving and logic, not just talked about. Acknowledging them is scary, and it's scary to me too, but I just wanted people to know that they can act, and they're not the only ones worrying about the state of the world. Pointing out negativity isn't always something that creates fear, but to me, the first step to banishing it. People have always had fear inside them, but first they had to acknowledge it to do something about it.
I would do anything, Lynn. I would promise to spend an entire month everyday just getting feedback from sensitivity readers if it takes. I would promise to PM several friends in SF or otherwise to comment feedback on it to allow it to be less fearmongering. I'd sacrifice hours of my work in everyday life, just as long as some version of this message is made.
Because what's less scary than pointing out something scary and having other people discuss it together? That, rather than people hiding their fear to themselves like I can sense to many people in this forum. I didn't critique people because I didn't believe in them and wanted to create hopelessness, but because I respected them and believed they can take the challenge. With traumas and disability in my life, I've been seen as vulnerable, but I didn't want to be overly protected like that.
So tell me, Lynn. What can I do to make a compromise? I'll be waiting with high respects for your wisdom.
SL.