I have now spent a little time on BlueSky.
-
@Remittancegirl You speak for me and I think you can assume that almost always speak for someone. I hope you don't mind me splitting hairs here - off-topic too. What you meant was perhaps that you wouldn't assume speaking for everyone. Is that correct? I wish we could leave behind that trope that "I can only speak for myself". I have yet to find someone who can only do that. There's almost always someone else that can join and say - "Exactly, that speaks for me too". @pcsoblahdeehell @snigdha
@malte @Remittancegirl @snigdha My own take on that (FWIW, IMHO, & all the other caveats!
) is that on the one hand, unless there has been a relatively extensive discussion of a "tribune of the people" representative with others on a particular theme, it is true "one can only speak for oneself"; on ther other, experiences of common public phenomena (with given characteristics!) are rarely restricted to one individual: hence one may well accurately reflect the experiences of more, or many ppl! -
@malte @Remittancegirl @snigdha My own take on that (FWIW, IMHO, & all the other caveats!
) is that on the one hand, unless there has been a relatively extensive discussion of a "tribune of the people" representative with others on a particular theme, it is true "one can only speak for oneself"; on ther other, experiences of common public phenomena (with given characteristics!) are rarely restricted to one individual: hence one may well accurately reflect the experiences of more, or many ppl!@malte @Remittancegirl @snigdha
In other words, I think you are right!
At the same time, I wouldn't downplay variable - and in some cases, adjustable - factors (as I was trying to get at further up this thread!)
-
@Remittancegirl You speak for me and I think you can assume that almost always speak for someone. I hope you don't mind me splitting hairs here - off-topic too. What you meant was perhaps that you wouldn't assume speaking for everyone. Is that correct? I wish we could leave behind that trope that "I can only speak for myself". I have yet to find someone who can only do that. There's almost always someone else that can join and say - "Exactly, that speaks for me too". @pcsoblahdeehell @snigdha
You can split all the hairs you like. But when it comes to MY experience of Bluesky - which is what I described - I’m only speaking to my own experience.
If, by coincidence, others have had similar experiences, then I can assume my experience was not unique.
Okay… now I’m bored with this. enough hairs split.
-
@malte @Remittancegirl @snigdha
In other words, I think you are right!
At the same time, I wouldn't downplay variable - and in some cases, adjustable - factors (as I was trying to get at further up this thread!)
@pcsoblahdeehell I'll extend this tangential discussion a bit (and take responsibility for starting it!). I think there are some simple, clear principles that can cover the different takes you bring up (on the one hand, on the other...). The principles as I see them: When you say something, assume that you're not alone, that it will be the voice of a subgroup. Assume that there will be differences too - other subgroups. You're speaking for others, but not all. @Remittancegirl
-
@pcsoblahdeehell I'll extend this tangential discussion a bit (and take responsibility for starting it!). I think there are some simple, clear principles that can cover the different takes you bring up (on the one hand, on the other...). The principles as I see them: When you say something, assume that you're not alone, that it will be the voice of a subgroup. Assume that there will be differences too - other subgroups. You're speaking for others, but not all. @Remittancegirl
No, Malte. I’m a Lacanian. I NEVER think I’m speaking for anyone other than myself.
-
@pcsoblahdeehell I'll extend this tangential discussion a bit (and take responsibility for starting it!). I think there are some simple, clear principles that can cover the different takes you bring up (on the one hand, on the other...). The principles as I see them: When you say something, assume that you're not alone, that it will be the voice of a subgroup. Assume that there will be differences too - other subgroups. You're speaking for others, but not all. @Remittancegirl
@pcsoblahdeehell And an add: If you want to build healthy communities - expect to be joined on your perspective (create a norm for it, don't underplay being the voice of a group by repeating those tropes of the isolated, individual perspective). @Remittancegirl
-
You can split all the hairs you like. But when it comes to MY experience of Bluesky - which is what I described - I’m only speaking to my own experience.
If, by coincidence, others have had similar experiences, then I can assume my experience was not unique.
Okay… now I’m bored with this. enough hairs split.
@Remittancegirl Apologies for hijacking the thread! @pcsoblahdeehell @snigdha
-
No, Malte. I’m a Lacanian. I NEVER think I’m speaking for anyone other than myself.
@Remittancegirl I get it. On that point we think very differently!
-
@Remittancegirl Apologies for hijacking the thread! @pcsoblahdeehell @snigdha
@malte No need to apologise. I get the sense that, for you, building a consensus is important.
-
@malte No need to apologise. I get the sense that, for you, building a consensus is important.
@Remittancegirl It's both! Building difference and community. @pcsoblahdeehell
