The Give ME Society

My biggest issue comes from the attack on people rather than ideas. On pointed, passive-aggressive and tiresome critiques of people like Chris Brogan and the way they’re doing things rather than a discourse on the general balance between free and paid, between value creation and demand generation, on how to retain the tenets of social that we protect so vigorously while making a viable business model out of it so that it enjoys a long, sustainable life.

I’d much rather sit down and debate the merits of one idea vs. another rather than having to poke sharp sticks at people to make a point. I just don’t think it makes anyone look very good, and it distracts from the debate and discussion itself. Moreover, the tone of petulant snark gets really old, really fast. It doesn’t encourage anyone to sit down for a cogent discussion, lest they become the next one to get into a petty war of words.

The defense that Mike makes above is that “people in this space” can’t take differing ideas, and I simply don’t think that’s the case. But there’s no reason that the method by which those differing ideas are delivered can’t be respectful and calm rather than laden with vitriol – in this space or anywhere else. If what we really want is discussions on the merits of one approach or the other, then that’s where we need to focus our attention and effort, and tune our approach and our attitudes accordingly.

Hey Mike -

That’s an interesting topic, the one of brand vs. personal presence. I
couldn’t agree more that the two intertwine, for better *and* for worse, and
it’s something that’s going to continue to be at issue. But I don’t think it
precludes us from being thoughtful about what and who it is that we’re
criticising – and most importantly – how we’re going about it.

The same sense of generalization – “social media people”, for instance – is
equally unfair when applied to those who criticize and calling them
“haters”. I think what complicates most issues again isn’t the existence of
divergent thought or point of view, but the ways they’re delivered. From my
personal perspective, I’ve had plenty of my ideas questioned or criticized,
and as tough as that can be to take, when it’s delivered with respect and
genuine interest to converse about the ideas and concepts vs. slinging
barbs, I’m all ears even as I lick my wounds. It’s really hard to deny
discussion to someone who approaches it thoughtfully, even if your points of
view are divergent.

But while we’re talking about turning that spirit of questioning on
ourselves a bit more, I think it’s fair to say that that needs to apply to
everyone, including those who are railing in their moments of righteousness.
Not only are there people on the other ends of the links, but there is
likely really useful discussion that could happen if individuals could
breathe long enough to retract their claws. I find myself wading into
discussions less and less not because I don’t value diversity of opinion – I
do, very much – but because frankly, it’s an ugly place to *have*
discussions sometimes, this place we call the internet.

And some will say I personally need a thicker skin, which may be true. But I
think respect is something that’s sorely lacking in many a conversation, and
it’s unfortunate that it causes folks to steer clear from broader dialogue
because they’re afraid of who will next be wielding the spear. My
unwillingness to suffer nastiness is not an indicator of how much I’m
willing to entertain divergent viewpoints. And while everyone’s take on
what’s nasty is likely different, I wish very much that the debates and
discussions swirled around complex ideas with lots of nuance rather than
individual people and the choices they make (that only they will eventually
answer for, for better or worse).

Ah, intent. That’s actually one of my favorite topics, and something much
more in depth than can probably be tackled in this comment stream. I agree
that intent counts for a *lot*. So, in knowing that, our challenge as
communicators is to figure out how to get that across, no?

As for me, I have lots of great conversations. They’re just not in the usual
places or with the obvious people sometimes, and just because they aren’t
seen doesn’t mean they aren’t had. I simply won’t put myself in the midst of
a melee simply to get a point heard; I care about my work as much as the
next guy or girl, but I don’t take it so seriously as to believe I’m saving
lives here. It’s social media. And if I’m going to get backhanded, called
names, or personally undercut in order to participate in what masquerades as
a “discussion”? No, thank you. I’ll find and attempt to contribute my value
elsewhere.

My definition of an “ugly” conversation worth enduring is when I believe
there’s strong intent, but also an undercurrent of mutual respect and a
desire to indeed improve on something collectively. Difficult conversations
I’m happy to have. Complex ones, even ones that get uncomfortable. But there
are limits, and sometimes a debate simply isn’t worth the price you pay to
participate, nor what it rains down on others. Not every “useful”
conversation justifies the fallout.

Appreciate the discussion.

I wish everyone spoke as direct, honest and heart felt as you do.

I’m just saying that sometimes it isn’t about jealousy or hate. It is very easy and a little scary to lump hard (and even poorly worded) questions into those categories. 

What I love about Social Media and the people in it is that they spend a tremendous amount of time thinking about how to move traditional business models forward. They question accepted norms. 

Sometimes their messages to the traditional market are elegant, sometimes they are clunky. That is the easy determination. The other is if the underlying point is valid or vitriol and this can often be harder to see and far easier to dismiss.

We are all learning how to communicate better here. I’m just asking that you don’t dismiss everyone who makes a misstep as a whiny and jealous hater, even if they might sound like it on a given day.