Arguing the Tone Argument

[rockinlibrarian]

It's no secret that the Internet is home to nasty, rude, trolling bullies and attention whores. It's also, though, the place where many folks find like-minded people who become friends-- a hangout. A place to go when you need to talk, when you're stuck at home with a small child and you haven't GOT nearby friends and you don't LIKE talking on the telephone. So when you need a friend, it's a good place to find one, but it's also a gamble.

That's what I was thinking the other day, when I was having a particularly Bad Day ("Bad Day" in the sense of someone dealing with chronic depression-- nothing was going WRONG necessarily, but my brain chemicals were NOT behaving themselves), and found myself endlessly clicking and refreshing from social media site to social media site with no motivation to get away. Internet Addiction is really an offshoot of a GAMBLING addiction. You're there hoping to hear something wonderful from your friends, right? You keep clicking and clicking, hoping to hit the Lovely Kindness Jackpot. But MOST of the time you just run into-- well, NOT the Kindness Jackpot. And very often you run into the nastiness. So whatever fortune you HAD in happiness keeps getting chipped away at as you anxiously keep clicking to win.

I made a mistake that day that I never saw coming, because I never would have suspected I was making a mistake. When I'm feeling terrible about myself, it helps me to comfort other people-- to reach out and say, "Hey, you're upset, but I believe in you, let's face this insanity called Life together!" So I wrote a comment on a post I'd caught in passing, that had spoken to me in a way I thought I understood, reaching out in solidarity with the poster. But apparently I'd misinterpreted it, and was immediately flat-out scolded for responding "inappropriately" by someone whom I assume now is a friend of the original poster, but at that moment I was more like "Wait what? What did I do? Who are you and why are you yelling at me when I was just trying to be nice?" (The irony here is, of course, that lots of people react to feeling terrible about themselves by PUTTING OTHER PEOPLE DOWN, and I'd done the OPPOSITE and had still managed to offend someone). You should have done your research before responding, was the basic response. You are not part of our particular persecuted minority and therefore you have NO RIGHT to act like you know anything about it. You're telling ME to "be nice"? You need to read this, then. And she linked me to this:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument.

She linked also to several additional clarifying things she and her friend had written (but which had NOT, was my point, been in the original post), and accused me of not having read them. But I DID read all the links and STILL didn't understand why I was being yelled at (though I may have understood how I'd misinterpreted what I'd first read). But it was that last, about "the Tone Argument," that gave me the most to think about. ("I did learn some interesting things about why people do the things they do today, but those interesting things just made me feel hopeless," I wrote in my journal later).

Like most concepts with good intentions, it makes sense. If someone does or says something horrible, you react with anger, and they come back with "Well YOU could have said that more nicely," it's pretty obnoxious, right? Works both ways, jerk. The site uses this metaphor: "If you tread on someone's toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don't tell them to 'ask nicely'." Only I'm not sure it's always that clear. What about those kids who are standing in line and freak out because somebody accidentally bumped them? What if what someone actually said was, "Excuse me, I need to get past you but I seem to be about to tread on your toes, can you tell me how I can avoid that?" What if the issue is more one of getting up in someone's personal space, not outright on their toes? We can't be civil in those contexts? Because I've seen this argument used in places where people genuinely WERE acting with good intentions, even if they were short on information. And suddenly someone's like "YOU are just trying to SHUT ME UP, SO SHUT UP!"

Sure, you could say it's only Internet Crazies who use the argument that way, and I might have agreed, except that reading this suddenly cleared up an upsetting online interaction I had a few years ago with an author I loved. Not some newbie inexperienced-with-fans author, either. A VERY well-respected well-loved established author. I'd responded to a fiery political post with a gentle suggestion that the issue would never be resolved unless the two sides learned to listen to each other and speak respectfully. She slammed me back with a NO, WRONG, WE'VE GIVEN THEM TOO MUCH ALREADY, DON'T TELL ME TO BE NICE, YOU'RE A TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY. Gah, I was stung. Why was this woman I greatly respected yelling at me for wanting people to listen to each other? I'd been so polite and well-reasoned and balanced in what I said and she BLEW UP at me, and I LOVED her! I've since worked on forgiving her (I'm pretty sure I have, but it still stings a bit, so does that mean I haven't?) by accepting that she's human and she really cares about the issue so she just had a knee-jerk reaction, a heat-of-emotion thing, like when my son flips out and throws things when things don't go his way even though he knows very well not to do that if you ask him about it when he's calm. If I'd caught her in a less-heated moment I'm sure she would have responded less viciously. But after reading this, I'm not so sure. She was basically telling me "STOP WITH THE TONE ARGUMENTS! People who say that stuff are just further trying to silence the already-too-silent oppressed people!"

Is this TRUE? What am I missing? I honestly want to hear from you, if you believe in this concept, and if you are an oppressed minority who doesn't like straight/white/raised-middle-class/mainstream-Christian people like myself (okay, I'm a woman. Whoopie. Not exactly a minority in the world of children's literature) butting in and making you feel like you're having your voice stolen. Look, if your opinion is "Naw, this is Liberal Politically Correct B.S.," that's NOT the response I'm looking for, because it doesn't help me to understand (but please, respond anyway. I don't want to silence ANYBODY). I really want to hear from people who DON'T think it's Liberal Politically Correct B.S.

I mean, it's ironic, isn't it? This discussion about people trying to silence you? That's me, that's MY main struggle in my life, having the courage to speak up! And yet these arguments have been used to GET me to shut up! Sure, that's not the intent at all. It's just you never really know who you're talking to, on the Internet. There are times when somebody IS clearly trying to derail a conversation and keep the persecuted from being heard or taken seriously. There are times when people say clearly insensitive things. But much of the time it's NOT THAT CLEAR, and it's possible you really ARE hurting someone who doesn't deserve to be hurt in order to defend your own hurting. The other afternoon I kept thinking, "What if I was suicidal? I'm not a suicidal person, I'm a go-unresponsive-and-ineffectual person-- both reactions to extreme depression, but one's considered tragic, the other's just considered lazy. But what if I WAS? What if an uncivil word from a stranger on the Internet who claimed to be fighting for justice just HAPPENED to be the last straw for me today?"

You NEVER KNOW. People THINK things are clear-cut, offensive or not, when in fact for someone else they could be quite the opposite, and you get someone telling you "Well it doesn't MATTER what your INTENT was, but it was still offensive to me, so I get to tell you off." Well, I find Billy Joel's song "Only The Good Die Young" personally offensive for reasons he NEVER intended, that have nothing to do with the song and everything to do with me. I have no need to call Billy out with a, "Okay, you THOUGHT you were just singing a song about trying to get a virginal girl to sleep with you, but don't you know that refrain of yours can be seriously warped by literal-minded young children with Survivor's Guilt into thinking they're not good enough because they're alive? YOU CRUEL, INSENSITIVE MAN, YOU!" And it's stupid how much the quite positive rallying-call of "We need more minority voices in literature!" gets twisted around in my head as "HEY AMY! YOU'RE SO FREAKING PRIVILEGED! SHUT UP ALREADY BECAUSE NOBODY NEEDS TO HEAR YOUR STORY ANYMORE, YOU PRIVILEGED OVER-REPRESENTED PERSON, YOU!" and I feel like I have no business wanting to write anymore. I'm sorry I'm privileged. I didn't ask to be born to loving parents in a middle-class home. I didn't ask to be born of European ancestry in the richest country in the world which happens to give people the holidays off that I happen to celebrate in my religion. I didn't ask to be cisgendered and heterosexual. Maybe I'll never understand what it's like NOT to be those things. I'll also never understand what it's like to be extroverted, or a Nickelback fan, or the kind of person who feels guilty for eating dessert. NOBODY can really understand ANYTHING they're not. But isn't that why we need to be open to each other? Isn't that what art is for? Isn't that what listening and discussion and respect are for?

Look, right, we have to stand up against oppression. We can't stay silent and get walked all over. But there's a difference between being nice and being kind. And if being nice doesn't work, that doesn't necessarily mean being KIND WON'T work. On the other hand, NOT being kind adds to the general negativity of the world, it doesn't make the world a better place. It could hurt people, it could turn others away who would otherwise be on your side, and it just further keeps people from hearing each other, so everyone keeps preaching to their own choirs, and NOTHING EVER GETS ACCOMPLISHED. Being kind means standing up for what you believe, but giving others enough benefit of the doubt that they're willing to listen to you.

So seriously, what am I missing? Am I just too much of an idealistic Type 9 for believing that understanding and unity and kindness are what it takes to heal the world? Am I being totally insensitive for even suggesting such a thing? DISCUSS WITH ME. Civilly. I want to hear your voices.

Comments

[elouise82.livejournal.com]

It's a really multi-leveled problem, and it's really hard. I'm in your boat as to my background/heritage/place in the world. And I too find it frustrating to be told on the one hand "We need more voices for the minorities and oppressed in the world!" and on the other "You're not enough of a minority or oppressed, so you don't get to speak on their behalf!" Well, what am I supposed to do? How am I supposed to contribute to the solution if my every contribution is shot down by "Yes, but this isn't YOUR narrative, so shut up"? This only serves to drive people further apart.

But I don't know what the solution IS, because like I said, I DO descend from the oppressors, and so maybe even my attempts to see from the other side really are offensive. But then, what CAN I do about it? I'm not just going to write it off as "oh well, not my story, so I'm not even going to try, I'll just accept my heritage and continue the pattern" OR "oh woe is me, I am a wretch and can never do better and therefore will wallow in my oppressor-heritage misery." There has GOT to be a better way.

Personally, I believe the world needs kind idealists. Not "watch the world burn because I'm sticking to my principles" idealists ("The first thing a principle does," says Lord Peter Wimsey, "is kill somebody.") but "let's work together to make the world a better place, even if that sometimes means letting go of our legitimate grievances and reaching out to somebody we don't have anything in common with." But there again, am I being insensitive because I don't, really, have that many legitimate grievances? I DON'T KNOW.

This was a very long comment to basically say I'm as clueless as you are.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

WHEW, I'm just relieved to see somebody else feels bewildered by the complexity, too, and it isn't just me being naive, or worse, casually oppressive.

It's weird because I'm so freaking sensitive, you know? And I have a vivid imagination. It FEELS at least EASY for me to put myself into someone else's shoes, because I think about the universals-- what pain, rejection, joy, love, disappointment, whatever feels like. But am I fooling myself because I don't understand the details? Is there something MORE people can do to understand each other?

Also, I tend to overthink things. So I'll get stuck debating with myself what the "right" answer IS for so long that I'll never get anywhere with it!

[angelique (from livejournal.com)]

Note: Some or none of this may be relevant to yr experience, in general or in this specific instance. I'm speaking fairly generically here.

About being a good ally.
I think some individuals/groups get a bit bristly b/c sometimes privilege folks want a "good ally" badge for just showing up and having some semblance of awareness of the group's POV. I don't think these groups are wrong for wanting more out of their allies and, admittedly, sometimes doing the hard work of being an ally means taking some knocks. The ally in these scenarios can either take those knocks in stride, learn more, try to do better or they can get huffy and take their toys and go home. This is what privilege allows them--they can walk away from and choose to ignore the other group's issues and problems.

About tone policing
I think this is a real thing. I see it a lot in the tech community where women are told they're not nice enough when they're agitating about themselves and their peers being dismissed, earning less, not being promoted as much, being verbally and physically assaulted and being harassed for speaking up about any of these things. I see it even more on blogs by/with black authors (who so many seem to read everything in Angry Black Woman voice, regardless of the actual words used by the author). The content of what folks are worried/frustrated/angry about is made to be less important than HOW they're expressing themselves. This is a form of derailment. While you, personally, might like it better if folks talked about things kindly and calmly, it's simply not true that the tone of anyone's blog post or tweet caused the racism, sexism or other ISM they're discussing. And that's what tone policing suggests. It puts another hoop in front of folks who have worn themselves out jumping through hoops in order to get to a better place.

Listening, fairness and equality
It seems like it should be fairly innocuous to say "We should listen to each other with respect." I would have agreed up until this fall when someone's response to a physical assault at a con in Ohio was to create a new con, TRUCEConf. The original version of this conference homepage talked about "both sides" having conversations without "anger." It was all about listening and respect...AND it was a perfect example of tone policing, IMHO. Expecting women to come to a conference with someone who owned up to sexually assaulting a member of the community and/or those who stood up for him, treating both sides as equal in this equation is wrong-headed in the extreme. Suggesting that women--or anyone--would be wrong to react to this situation with anger or that the anger was part of the problem was also wrong-headed. I'm sure the con organizer had good intentions, but just like showing up as an ally isn't enough, good intentions don't get you a gold star when folks are talking about systemic oppression and the pain they experience as a result. Sometimes I think people react negatively to the "let's just listen to both sides with respect" approach because it assumes equality in situations where (1) the lack of equality is exactly the problem at hand and/or (2) the idea of equality itself is offensive (i.e., what kind of equality do we want between the folks who commit violence/harassment and their victims)?

Overall
Is it still true that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? Yes, but (1) I'm not sure if catching flies is always the goal and (2) no one is obligated to put out a tray of honey to make other folks more comfortable. Again, I'm not projecting any of these behaviors on to you or the situations you described, but instead providing some general thoughts on the subjects in your post. Sorry for the novel, but hope it's helpful/thought provoking :)

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I wonder if there's something of a crying wolf issue here. The argument is being used in I-don't-agree situations as much as in situations where people have been assaulted. It's similar to the "I'm sick of celebrities getting away with stuff!" argument. A celebrity says something stupid, people say "Let up on them already, it was an off-the-cuff interview, they were tired, it didn't come out right, whatever," and somebody's all "WHY DO WE LET CELEBRITIES GET AWAY WITH THAT?" and my reply is like "We let people we actually know get away with that all the time." But then you get a situation like Woody Allen's sex abuse thing, and NOW people who are like "she must be lying. You need to cut Allen a break. We need more evidence"... okay, THAT'S letting celebrities get away with stuff. He needs to face the consequences of his crimes.

Now, me, I would tend to still be KIND to an unrepentant villain like that, but in a, "Sorry, dude, you've gone too far. You're OUT" sort of way. Like Justin Bieber being a stupid kid. He did the crime, he does the time, I won't argue with that, but he IS a stupid out-of-control kid so he doesn't need to be MOCKED by adults in power, either, you know?

But if ignorant comments (and I mean "ignorant" in the true sense of the word, "not knowing," not just kids going "Stop being ignorant to me!") are getting shut down with the same ferocity as people who want to gloss over serious injustices, the argument loses some of its strength.

[angelique (from livejournal.com)]

I think you're allowed to be as kind as you want to whoever you want; you just can't always expect the same of everyone around you :) (FWIW, I have a bad reaction to people being yell-y or visibly angry IRL, so I definitely relate to being uncomfortable in those situations and shutting down.)

It's hard to say on the "crying wolf." Obviously, you didn't link up the original convo, so I can't say with any certainty. Additionally, I don't think suggesting/stating someone is engaging in tone policing is like a nuclear option that should only be reserved for egregious behavior. As for the tone of those calling out tone policing--yes, ideally, they'd assume the best of everyone and want to point it out in a way that couldn't be characterized as yelling. But, even there, I'm sympathetic. Those who have blogs about Isms (and their communities) are often expected to provide Ally 101 again and again to those who comment on their blogs, to explain Ism 101 again and again and answer the same questions again and again. It wears you out and puts the onus on the person bringing the issue to light to do a lot of community education. Again, all this might not be relevant to the experience you're describing, but I see it a lot on Twitter where feminists are supposed to be always available to explain basic tenets of feminism, to define terms repeatedly and, when they're not available or willing to do so, treated as though they're hurting their cause. See, again, allies can and should be expected to do some work themselves, not just show up.

In general, when I'm representing the privileged POV in a space and my behavior or words are called into question, I expect to feel uncomfortable about that and have strategies to deal with that discomfort *separately* from the issue at hand. Because my discomfort isn't the issue and isn't the problem of that community/group/individual.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

In my case last Thursday-- like I said, I misunderstood something-- it was a Tumblr post, and as such it wasn't obviously connected to other posts, I had no idea it was about Specific Cultural Issues That I Had No Say In-- the original poster had brought them up, but I saw them as just details to her specific situation, and I related to the broader issue-- addressing moral issues in writing. I wasn't trying or not-trying to be an Ally, I was just trying to talk to someone else about writing. So when someone who wasn't even the original poster jumped in with "This is an inappropriate response!" and linked to the other things she'd written that I hadn't even seen, I was genuinely confused. WHY? Why address me at all? Why was I being answered by someone different than the person I'd replied to? I didn't hurt anyone, I wasn't trying to start anything, I was just ignorant. I couldn't understand why she EXPECTED me to know things I couldn't have known from what I'd seen in the first place.

In the case of the author, I try not to be too specific, because I don't want anyone else to have to deal with the bitter taste I have in the back of my mouth when I think about her books now. But it was over a post about a piece of reproductive health legislation that I agreed had a lot of problems and really did seem to be, in this specific instance, a case of men trying to regulate women's bodies. BUT her flippant references to fetuses as bundles of lifeless cells in said post rubbed me the wrong way as someone who DOES respect the life of the unborn child, even though I'm more willing to compromise when it comes to legislation than most people who call themselves Pro-Life, and I am related to many women who are fierce Pro-Life activists-- totally their own choices, not the influence of the men in their lives or anything-- and I understood how THEY see the issue, and it occurred to me that decent people like them might be perfectly willing to take issue with this particular piece of legislation if people calling for action against it weren't ripping down the Pro-Life movement in general. So I wrote about how I agreed that these laws had issues but we really needed to learn to talk with each other or we'd never be able to make change, because the people on each side are fighting about two completely different things without realizing it! And, yeah. That didn't go over well. It's one thing to say, why should you put out honey if you don't want flies to begin with, but I wasn't trying to attract the flies. I was trying to attract the lovely, intelligent women who were on the other side of the argument only because they saw it as a threat to unborn rights, instead of noticing that in this case it WAS actually more of a threat to women's rights.

[elouise82.livejournal.com]

I actually read that Tumblr post you reference here, and because I was interested in the original issue, I followed the links back to the original poster. Two things: 1, that second poster, the one who chided you, gave the exact same response to every other person who tried to post something helpful/encouraging in response to the post; 2, there was absolutely nothing in that original post to let anyone know the first poster was part of that Specific Cultural Issue, only that she was aware of it and wanting to be sensitive. "Inappropriate" seemed, and still seems, an odd choice, especially coming from a person who didn't even write the post. "You're misunderstanding the point,"
yes. "Inappropriate," though ... inappropriate is someone making fun of my grandfather immediately after his death (didn't happen, just using a hypothetical here); misunderstanding is someone asking me how my grandfather is doing because they heard he was sick but not of his death, and wanted to show they care. Big difference.

Which is all to say, assuming ill intent doesn't help you promote your cause, and it doesn't help others want to join your cause when they know every word they say is going to be automatically assigned the most negative meaning possible. There is a legitimate difference between speaking forcefully and even angrily over injustice, and having a chip on your shoulder against even those who genuinely care about and for you.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I didn't want to specifically LINK to the offending posts, but it's nice to hear a second opinion on what I actually saw!

[grrlpup]

Being a Nice White Lady (TM) to my bones, I had a hard time understanding tone policing and "white women's tears." I mean, the tears and hurt feelings are real! Surely this can't be the best way to accomplish your goals, get your point across, etc. etc.

But after the initial shock and embarrassment, I can see how my attitude placed ME in the center, with an unconscious assumption that the burden was on a person with less privilege than I have to make their expression palatable to me. With me as the inherently reasonable judge, somehow, even if I had just said something obtuse or clueless or racist.

I won't lie, I hate being called out and try to minimize how often it happens. But I wouldn't set kindness at "giving others enough benefit of the doubt that they're willing to listen to you." That may be politic, but I would say it's a kind act to confront me and tell me I'm out of line, even coldly or angrily.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean. It's better to learn than to continue being ignorant. (And on the other hand, yes, I wish people would understand that one person's pain isn't more valid than anyone else's pain!)

In the case of my issue on Thursday (which I explain more in the comment above), I honestly had no idea I was even dealing with a racial issue, and the response made no sense to me. I don't think it would have hurt anybody if they'd just IGNORED my misstep instead of calling me out-- it wasn't a thing I needed to learn about their culture, it was just me not knowing enough about this PARTICULAR POST. It won't help me in the future because it was a specific instance.

[grrlpup]

I think the Tumblr interface had a part in this. :(

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. After it happened I wrote a Tumblr post that said "I hate Tumblr!" I never thought I'd like Twitter but soon came to love it, but after a year on Tumblr I still don't get it. Or, I get it, it's a fun way to share pictures and little bits of posts, but for SAYING something? You have to reblog to comment half the time, and there's no guarantee any other potential commenters will even see what you wrote? The "like" function only likes the post in general, not specific edits/comments? There's no dates, so you can't see how old a post you're reblogging is, to know if it even still applies? And, in this case especially, if you later realize a post needs to be edited, but the post has already been reblogged and keeps being passed around so people never see the edit? The Information Specialist in me is screaming in pain.

[innerbrat]

My general response to the tone argument is - if someone steps on your toe, you ask them to step off, you yell in pain, you might even push them away, but you don't punch them in the face.

Tone-policing IS a real thing, and it is harmful and it is used to silence people, and to derail the conversation, and it's used a lot. But I've also seen the counter to that be used to allow people to pile on and send hate at anyone from well-meaning fools to any one who just doesn't understand the context.

And it's not like people don't have a right to their anger. But taking it out on strangers who just happen to misstep - I'm never sure how beneficial that is to anyone.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Thanks! This is my thinking. Glad to know I'm not crazy.

[millysdaughter.livejournal.com]

Being polite, being kind - is never wrong. How someone else reacts to it is not under your control. The only think **I** can control is how **I** speak.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

:)

Possibly Useless Ramblings

[angela gayan galik (from livejournal.com)]

If you can believe it, reading THIS post what what actually made me want to get on a real computer and comment, but then I got distracted by Sherlock and his cheekbones. (Not really LOL. Sherlock yes, cheekbones no.) I want to comment from my perspective as a composition teacher and someone whose academic specialization is quote-unquote minority literatures. But mostly it's just going to be me explaining why I agree with things other people already commented, probably with some smartassery thrown in. And no, spell check did not let me have that one.

First of all, the interaction(s - but mainly the Tumblr one) you are describing sounds hurtful and bewildering and I am sorry that happened to you! :-( The Internet definitely does not always bring out the best in people.

Re the "tone argument," it is, in my opinion (let's just start off with that), sadly so true!!! My thoughts are going to be in no logical order here, just whatever order I remember them in ...

1. Grrlpup brought up what I think is the most important point: the person with privilege often makes the issue about themselves by taking offense to the other's tone. "But I was well intentioned and trying to be helpful!" (not you -- general comment) Yes, and sometimes the well-intentioned action is not actually helpful; it may be unintentionally hurtful; it may be the fifteenth unintentionally hurtful thing a nice, kind, well-meaning person has said to them that day.

2. Purpose: (comp hat) The purpose of the angry-seeming comment is not necessarily to create change by convincing the opposition that the commenter is right. It may be to vent (i.e. to express the emotion in words rather than by punching someone (who could be said to deserve it)), to share & commiserate about feelings of anger with others in the same community/group, to explore a particular persona in writing, to engage in performance art, or even to make readers angry and defensive and give them the experience of being continually put on the defensive (as the writer's experience may be) ... etc. Also, Intended Audience: may not be the person with privilege who is reading. So it may not make sense to the reader because it is not written for them. So it may make sense to simply not engage in a conversation if one gets the impression that it's not really about/to one. Anyway, my point is, the writer's goal may not be to win friends and influence people.

3. Miscellaneaarts mentioned how some people, especially those with more-rather-than-less privilege, tend to read every critique of society in the "Angry Black Woman" (Angry Gay Person, Angry Worker, Angry Religious Minority, whatever) voice. I just got an extremely striking view of this with my students. I assigned a very mild-toned, rationally-expressed, and non-aggressive essay that critiqued some aspects of privilege. About 3/4 (relatively privileged students) said that what they got out of it was "she was really angry," or "she hates X." I made them go through and point out what they saw as "angry" language, phrasing, tone ... they couldn't do it, and it frustrated them. One guy pointed to a sentence which, when closely read, turned out to be extremely innocuous and verifiably true. This is not to say that some things AREN'T written in Angry Black Woman voice -- but so many people tend to fill that in to ANY critique that it would be very frustrating over time, and probably lead to some understandable (in my opinion; also understandable does not equal "best, most helpful, most enlightened approach") emotional triggering around that particular response.

(ok, hold for part 2...)

Possibly Useless Ramblings Part 2

[angela gayan galik (from livejournal.com)]

Miscellaneaarts' point about the TRUCEconf was also extremely compelling, I thought. It's like, when one group -- ok, let's say exploited workers to take it out of the race dialogue -- has tried and tried rational dialogue for decades, and been unfairly and brutally thwarted, beaten up, demonized, etc. by the more powerful opponent (which incidentally rarely had any consequences for illegal actions, due to privilege, while the less privileged faced outrageously overblown consequences for trumped-up charges), then the workers' group resorted to expressions of anger or even "fighting back," some would be quick to blame them for their actions and call for a civilized sit-down or "rational dialogue." In the case of clearly unequal power and clearly unequal consequences for actions, what would make the workers think that such a parley would be anything other than another humiliating run-around? In other words, the "tone argument," in my opinion, is in resistance to a shaming practice ("These words, this way of putting it, is BAD") that hides unequal and often violent power dynamics.

In short, I believe people SHOULD be encouraged to express anger if that's what they're feeling and that's what they want to express! I express a lot of anger toward what I see as oppressive social structures that impact different people differently based on interlocking axes of privilege.

BUT, I don't generally think it's a GOOD idea to call people names or personally insult them!!! I am EXACTLY of the same mind re Justin Bieber and all related comments. And the point about what if you were a suicidal person and that last comment put you over the line ... oh my goodness, exactly!!! That would be a horrible outcome and I'm glad it didn't happen, and that is a very good reason for everyone treating each other with kindness! I'm in favor of kind idealists, also. I'm in favor of encouraging others to be their best selves. That's my vision for the world.

And I see that people respond to things differently based on their personality and past experiences, their level of fed-up or hurt -- grownup or not, everyone can snap sometimes, and I am not going to be the one "rationally explaining" why it's a bad idea to snap at someone, at least not if I can see how they might have gotten to that point. Unless *I* am having a bad day and a series of people gave me shit for my identity or values, or for trying to speak my truth -- then I might snap at someone. And then I would probably feel very bad about it later, but they might have been a stranger and I might have no way to apologize.

This probably came out sounding awful; I mean ABSOLUTELY NO criticism of YOU by ANY MINUTE PART of it -- I'm just expanding on some dialogues I've been having lately about this type of thing, and if it's utterly unhelpful then please delete it -- I promise I will not be offended. And I probably maxed out on characters again so this may come up in two parts, too. I miss you! I sure do wish we lived closer or weren't such crappy phone callers. I'd like to hang out with you a whole lot more.

Love,
Ang

Re: Possibly Useless Ramblings Part 2

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

2. This is a good point. I tend to think if someone is responding to a specific person, then they should be mindful of how they're responding to that person, not making a comment meant for other people. But there are plenty of other situations and types of writing where purpose is less clear, and less "let's talk civilly about this!" is necessary or even wanted.

3. That sounds like a really good teaching exercise, actually. You say that as if it was almost a spontaneous learning experience, but it's a brilliant way to teach about points of view and what the audience brings to a work!

I guess the difference lies between expressing anger and making it personal. Kind of a "hate the sin not the sinner" sort of thing. And it's really hard to know sometimes what issues are so important to a person that they WILL take it personally even when it's not meant personally, and that can cause a lot of painful misunderstanding in and of itself. Like, when people are so anti-gun they insinuate that gun owners are accessories to murder, and I'm like, "Dude, you're talking about my HUSBAND" and they were just talking policy, or on the other side of the political spectrum, when people say something idiotic about gay marriage and I get furious for the sake of yours-and-Sam's union. It's tricky to discuss non-personal policies when, on an individual basis, they ARE personal!

(I actually have been known to go back and apologize to random strangers on the Internet when I realized what I'd said had come out wrong or wasn't taken how I meant! But that sure isn't always practical).

It did NOT come out awful; I really do understand the concept so much better now, and I realize it is just that tricky line between personal and theoretical, and that some people are more sensitive to certain things than others, and sometimes, well, people DO use well-meaning ideas in not-so-enlightened ways. Like the whole Magneto thing-- Magneto isn't a villain because his IDEALS are wrong, his ideals are actually quite right; he's a villain because of how he treats or disregards the innocent bystanders-- he's prioritized his ideals over people.

I wish we could hang out more, too!