I think “managing people’s feelings” is too ambiguous of a term to make a principle out of. I can imagine some versions of it that feel good to me, and some version of it that seem quite bad to me.
As phrased, this would make it a bad principle to adopt because the ambiguity includes various interpretations of it that would IMO be catastrophic to the site, especially if we allowed users to push them all the way to the edge.
For example, it seems obvious to me that if someone experienced a recent tragic death, that if you are engaging them in comments directly, that you don’t make jokes related to that death, and expect them to take it in stride. Is this “managing someone’s emotions”? I think unambiguously yes. You might even be making jokes that would land a year or two later when the hurt is less raw. I also think it would be really pretty crazy for someone to do that (and also to not stop if asked to do that, because that is “asking them to manage someone else’s emotions”).
For example, it seems obvious to me that if someone experienced a recent tragic death, that if you are engaging them in comments directly, that you don’t make jokes related to that death, and expect them to take it in stride.
I agree with this example, but I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out where you’re going with it, and I currently disagree with “Is this ‘managing someone’s emotions’? I think unambiguously yes.”
Possibly my conceptualization of “asking people to manage others’ emotions” is not the clearest/best.
Do you have a guess about whether you and I disagree about anything substantial about norms? Do you have a phrasing you agree with that might capture the core thing I’m trying to stand up for here, in a way that is less confusing?
Hmm, I think I don’t really have a good positive example, or pointer, at the thing you mean by “not managing other people’s emotions”. Not making jokes you expect them to be triggered by, for sympathetic reasons, seemed to me like among the most central examples of managing someone’s emotions, so if that isn’t included I am now pretty confused what you are pointing to.
“Not asking users to directly manage other peoples feelings” was my original phrase, FWIW. (Emphases added.)
Two central examples of the kind of thing I have in mind (from elsewhere):
Person A says a thing, which upsets person B. Person A is expected to try to make B not-upset, kinda regardless of how this happened.
Participants in a large-group conversation are asked to “slow down” whenever at least one person in the conversation seems too triggered to process things well, even if this means [obviously interesting and relevant issue X] is never in fact talked about, or not at enough speed to get much throughput.
Part of my intuition here is that property rights and ~Hayekian natural law allow miracles of interactive productivity, and there’re a bunch of contexts in which this gets messed up when the {property rights and domains of allowed free choice and responsibility} get mangled.
Asking me to be (particular kinds of) polite is totally compatible with clear property rights of a sort that lets me choose freely what I’m gonna do, with an eye toward what I want to achieve, while leaving others a predictable domain in which they can do the same (without them needing to worry that I’ll mess up the rights they’re counting on). Asking me to not upset others (in generality) wouldn’t be.
Person A says a thing, which upsets person B. Person A is expected to try to make B not-upset, kinda regardless of how this happened.
But how is “not making a joke that would land well if not for the other interlocutor recently having experienced a tragic death that rhymes with that” not an example of this?
Or do you mean “there cannot be a norm that you are always responsible for someone else’s emotions, no matter how their emotions arise?”. In that case, sure, I agree with such a norm, but it also seems exceptionally weak. It doesn’t say much about there being some circumstances where we consider other people’s emotional reactions sympathetic, and worth modeling in the conversation, and the “recent tragic death” example is one such instance.
I think “managing people’s feelings” is too ambiguous of a term to make a principle out of. I can imagine some versions of it that feel good to me, and some version of it that seem quite bad to me.
As phrased, this would make it a bad principle to adopt because the ambiguity includes various interpretations of it that would IMO be catastrophic to the site, especially if we allowed users to push them all the way to the edge.
For example, it seems obvious to me that if someone experienced a recent tragic death, that if you are engaging them in comments directly, that you don’t make jokes related to that death, and expect them to take it in stride. Is this “managing someone’s emotions”? I think unambiguously yes. You might even be making jokes that would land a year or two later when the hurt is less raw. I also think it would be really pretty crazy for someone to do that (and also to not stop if asked to do that, because that is “asking them to manage someone else’s emotions”).
I agree with this example, but I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out where you’re going with it, and I currently disagree with “Is this ‘managing someone’s emotions’? I think unambiguously yes.”
Possibly my conceptualization of “asking people to manage others’ emotions” is not the clearest/best.
Do you have a guess about whether you and I disagree about anything substantial about norms? Do you have a phrasing you agree with that might capture the core thing I’m trying to stand up for here, in a way that is less confusing?
Hmm, I think I don’t really have a good positive example, or pointer, at the thing you mean by “not managing other people’s emotions”. Not making jokes you expect them to be triggered by, for sympathetic reasons, seemed to me like among the most central examples of managing someone’s emotions, so if that isn’t included I am now pretty confused what you are pointing to.
“Not asking users to directly manage other peoples feelings” was my original phrase, FWIW. (Emphases added.)
Two central examples of the kind of thing I have in mind (from elsewhere):
Person A says a thing, which upsets person B. Person A is expected to try to make B not-upset, kinda regardless of how this happened.
Participants in a large-group conversation are asked to “slow down” whenever at least one person in the conversation seems too triggered to process things well, even if this means [obviously interesting and relevant issue X] is never in fact talked about, or not at enough speed to get much throughput.
Part of my intuition here is that property rights and ~Hayekian natural law allow miracles of interactive productivity, and there’re a bunch of contexts in which this gets messed up when the {property rights and domains of allowed free choice and responsibility} get mangled.
Asking me to be (particular kinds of) polite is totally compatible with clear property rights of a sort that lets me choose freely what I’m gonna do, with an eye toward what I want to achieve, while leaving others a predictable domain in which they can do the same (without them needing to worry that I’ll mess up the rights they’re counting on). Asking me to not upset others (in generality) wouldn’t be.
But how is “not making a joke that would land well if not for the other interlocutor recently having experienced a tragic death that rhymes with that” not an example of this?
Or do you mean “there cannot be a norm that you are always responsible for someone else’s emotions, no matter how their emotions arise?”. In that case, sure, I agree with such a norm, but it also seems exceptionally weak. It doesn’t say much about there being some circumstances where we consider other people’s emotional reactions sympathetic, and worth modeling in the conversation, and the “recent tragic death” example is one such instance.