Some dude thinking he’s correcting a minor point, usually incorrectly or in an irrelevant way, missing the larger argument and derailing any productive conversation.
Analyzing the mansplaining
Sander Philipse

IMO, correction comments and private consideration of the larger argument are separate things. I often do both.

I like the way you write that the act of a reader commenting on something distracting in the article, itself, creates a distraction for readers in the comment section. That’s a viewpoint that commenters probably haven’t considered.

“What feels like a benign correction to a mansplainer, exists on a continuum of bigotry. At least worst, it means men don’t have to listen when women express their opinions.”

That’s an idea I hadn’t thought about. At the risk of sounding like one of those #notallmen mansplainers, I don’t think you’re talking about someone like me, though I do write correction comments. (I did not comment on Holly’s essay, though I enjoyed it thoroughly.)

What’s your preferred way of providing corrections for actual typos or actual misinformation in a non-harassing way? Does it differ between writers? Or is the entire concept of audience corrections just a subset of “why wasn’t I consulted” culture?

Thanks for writing this. It must’ve been a chore to wade through those comments.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.