![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 10:27 pm (UTC)From: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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 11:09 pm (UTC)From: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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 11:46 pm (UTC)From: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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-10 01:14 am (UTC)From: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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-10 01:32 pm (UTC)From: