The "tone" argument

[andrewducker]

Edit:Thank you to everyone for the comments left on this piece. I've learned a lot from a variety of you. I am trying to engage with people who are trying to educate me, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to do so. I do appreciate that this is a large and complex issue, and if I'd known that it was going to be spread over half of LJ I'd probably have thought about it for more than 30 seconds before writing it.

I've now had it pointed out to me by several people that there's no point asking people to be polite when they're discussing things on the internet - because the tone they take doesn't actually affect how people's views are taken.

The most recent time I was linked to this post, which is well written, amusing, and completely failed to make its point to me.  Their point was that speaking politely doesn't work.  That people have tried speaking politely, and got nowhere.

My point is that they offer absolutely no evidence that shouting _does_ work.  And in my experience, shouting pushes people away more than anything else.

I don't have a racism example, because I've not been accused of racism.  However, I have been accused of sexism.  And I'm fairly sure that I have been sexist - but the way that I was approached managed to both shut off any chance that I was going to listen to what the person was saying, but also caused a few other people to feel disgusted at what they were saying.  It caused people to speak negatively of "feminists" - something I had to then try and correct (what with being one myself).

If someone has evidence that shouting at bigots actually achieves any good then I would be very happy to hear it.  Provided that it's presented to me in a reasonable, non-offensive manner.  I may even change my mind :->

Comments

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

My definitions of flaming clearly disagree with you, and there's no point getting into an argument about that, but I am specifically not accusing anyone of being a troll.

Oh, sorry -- not accusing you of that at all. Like I said (or should have said better) that was a side-rant because I've seen the word 'flame' used so much lately by so many people who are not using it correctly. Yours is slightly better than most, but I still find it highly problematic. It's a holdover from usnet wars and I find that wars there vs wars on LJ to be entirely different things. To apply the term 'flame' here, I think tries to skew what's actually going on to a neat box people understand, regardless that the issue no longer fits inside.

But that had nothing to do with you or anything you said. Just me bubbling over in annoyance.

But I reserve the right to whine, in my journal, about the unfairness of life. It's (in-between the linkspam) what my journal is _for_.

I would never, ever disagree with that. It's what I use my journal for, completely.

The issue is that you didn't set this up as a whine. You set this up as an I believe type of entry, which logically leads to people like me coming in here and going "but". I've learned to do things like lock my whining or make sure I'm really clear I am whining and that I know I'm being unfair to lots of parties involved to make sure I don't have people misconstruing what I'm doing.

Your methodologies will vary *shrug*

I stand by the second sentence. In my experience, this is what happens. Not every time, but _more_ than anything else.

I don't disagree with that statement (well, no, I do, but for right now I'll leave it go) because I'll try to explain again that's not the point. You're assuming that everyone involved wants to provide constructive dialogue and edumacation. That's simply not true.

Some people are trying to educate. Some people are just angry and don't give a damn anymore. Some people are furious that they have to edumacate yet one more time and hope that maybe this time, more than two or three people actually figure it out. Some people are just disappointed.

You cannot look at this huge, wide-reaching, complex thing and distill it down to "well, this is how I want to learn from it". Your learning, while valued, is not actually the point. The point is that people are tired and angry and have been poked by some fairly specific sticks, as well as some unspecific, and are reacting to it. Their reactions vary wildly.

To tacitly imply (and I do think it's tacitly) that their reactions must therefore be for your benefit, somehow, makes you part of what they're reacting against.

It makes me part of it, too. I'm basically using a bunch of people's pain. I've had mine used in other situations. It's one of those sucky parts of human nature.

and I'd like to make it clear that I'm not saying he was right (it sounds, to be honest, like he was horribly defensive and handled it awfully and offensively).

I didn't think you were, but as you brought it up as an example of where the conversation went too far in a direction you didn't like, that meant it was fair game for me to pick apart as to why it went off in that direction. Your example was not actually relevant to your point, basically. In fact, it mostly proves mine: he acted in bad faith. The fact that he thought he was being 'nice' was irrelevant. He wasn't and when called on it acted like a defensive asshat of the worst caliber. There was nothing nice or constructive about that conversation because it started out neither nice or constructive.

[andrewducker]

To tacitly imply (and I do think it's tacitly) that their reactions must therefore be for your benefit, somehow, makes you part of what they're reacting against.

Got it.

I _think_ that what I'm saying here is that I want the conversation to move forward, the cause to be advanced, etc. and thus I would prefer people to be polite, because that way (in my opinion) it will advance more efficiently. Also, I will be less upset.

Far be it from me to stop other people venting on the internet. :->

(Thanks for helping by the way - you're helping me clarify my thoughts here.)

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

I think that what I'm saying here...

So lets break this up:

I want ... the cause to be advanced : all good things. Unquestionably. The problem is that these are not definitive statements backed up with things you're going to do (for me, it's being way more aware of my privileges, trying not to step on toes, and making an active decision to push my comfort zone; putting money where my mouth is regarding poc books). I do understand that you're distilling your thought process here. But by immediately putting caveats up against it, you weaken your meaning.

Thus I would prefer people to be polite... it will advance more efficiently: There are a couple things in here I want to unpack. The first is that you're still dictating terms. The implication of "you would prefer people to be polite" is that if they are not, then nothing constructive can happen, and further that if they don't stick to your notion of politeness then you will not listen. I don't know if that's true, but that's the implication I'm seeing, backed up by our previous conversation.

There's also the idea of 'what is polite'? I found Kynn to be very reasonable in your journal, and you didn't and at least twice you changed your definition of 'nice' on her. Saying that you want people to be polite is all well and good. I even agree with it, to a degree. But there have to be ground rules set on what is polite and, more importantly, they have to be maintained.

One of the most frequent methods of derailment is the request that people be nice. It doesn't usually mean "I want to hear you and I can't because you're so angry I'm getting confused" it means "you're saying things I don't like that make me uncomfortable and I'm getting upset, which means you must have done something to make me upset, therefore you're at fault."

This is primarily subconscious. It's hard to look deeply enough in yourself to follow the internal logic. It is nonetheless true and it is one of the reasons you have people like me coming here and going "wait, no". Like I said, this used to be me. I have no illusions that it is not still me, more often then I'd like.

Sometimes, yes, we all need to take a breath and stop shouting. That's very true. But when people start demanding politeness, that is usually not what they're really after.

Please think about this. It is damn all hard.

Also, I will be less upset. I am willing to characterize this last statement as a whine. If it is intended that way, then I have no problems with it; this is a touchy, difficult subject and as I said, I will never question someone's request to whine.

If this is not a whine, then my response is: who the hell are you (generic) that my anger and my upset and my history of reasons for such anger and upset needs to be shelved? Who are you to demand/request/ask for such things? Why is that you get to set terms when this is about a hurt you are possibly guilty of adding to (and I mean this in a generic, cultural sense), and not the one who is hurt?

I know that paragraph is littered with 'you's; it's not meant as specifically personal.

Far be it from me to stop other people venting on the internet. :->

Understanding that your initial post came out differently than you intended it, isn't that what you just did? Some of the posts are meant to be constructive, but a lot aren't. A lot are just venting. Your post denied them the right to vent in a manner that was most helpful to them, personally. It required them to work on your schedule, your patterns.

Now, you make your post into more of a whine and I will lessen the accusations a little. But just a little: you are still unconsciously stating that your way is the only acceptable way. A way that, again, changes depending on the situation.

Thanks for helping by the way - you're helping me clarify my thoughts here

I'm glad it is helping. I've had people beat me over the head with hammers of varying size and strength. Now that I recognize certain things, I figure it's my turn to pick up the hammer and help as best I can. Which is not always wanted or helpful, either, but it's my way of trying.

[andrewducker]

There are a couple things in here I want to unpack. The first is that you're still dictating terms.

I'm stating preferences. I'm in no position to dictate terms.

The implication of "you would prefer people to be polite" is that if they are not, then nothing constructive can happen, and further that if they don't stick to your notion of politeness then you will not listen.

I believe that _less_ constructive things will happen. And I know that I am less likely to listen to people when I am being shouted at, because it elicits a primal fight/flight reflex. My observation of other people is that it elicits a similar reflex in a lot of people.

I found Kynn to be very reasonable in your journal
I'd say there was a mixture of nice and deliberately very difficult, with moments of definite rudeness in there. Let's put it this way - I've not had a problem with anyone else's comments here. I did have with Kynn's. This would tend to indicate that there was something different about them.

One of the most frequent methods of derailment is the request that people be nice.
I appreciate that - but just because it can be used as a derailment technique does not mean that it is an unreasonable request at all times.

I'm getting upset, which means you must have done something to make me upset, therefore you're at fault.
Hang on - I thought this was supposed to be a legitimate complaint - everything you've said so far indicated that you believed that this is a perfectly reasoanble thing to say.

Sometimes, yes, we all need to take a breath and stop shouting. That's very true. But when people start demanding politeness, that is usually not what they're really after.
I can't speak for everyone. I really can't. I can only say that I have seen people very-much put off by rudeness in a variety of discussions. Whether this was their subconscious shielding them from changing their mind is something I'm not really able to tell - but rudeness really does put people off. Of course people will use _every trick in the book_ to avoid changing their opinions. Give them a loophole by which to avoid thinking negative things and they will use it. But that does not mean that all requests for civility are being made by people who want to avoid thinking about their racism.

If this is a whine
Yup.

Your post denied them the right to vent in a manner that was most helpful to them, personally.
I disagree. I didn't tell anyone "Be polite or shut up."
I said "My point is that they offer absolutely no evidence that shouting _does_ work. And in my experience, shouting pushes people away more than anything else."
I stand by that.
At no point did I say that other forms of speech weren't handy for other purposes. My post was about what works and what doesn't. In my opinion, of course.

You are still unconsciously stating that your way is the only acceptable way
Really not. Promise.

I'm away from keyboard for a few hours, and possibly until tomorrow morning (UK time). I will get back to these comments later.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

I'm in no position to dictate terms.

Then you really need to take a look at how you were phrasing your initial post because your intent may to have been to state a preference. Your words dictated terms.

I believe that _less_ constructive things will happen. And I know that I am less likely to listen to people when I am being shouted at, because it elicits a primal fight/flight reflex. My observation of other people is that it elicits a similar reflex in a lot of people.

To go back to your first point, once again. If you are less likely to take being shouted at reasonably, then you need to sit down and look at why people are shouting and try to change it. Sometimes shouting is just shouting. Sometimes it isn't. The goal is to differentiate when someone is frothing at the mouth or mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Right now, we're seeing a lot more of the latter. The fact that you think it's the former means it's something you have to examine more closely.

but just because it can be used as a derailment technique does not mean that it is an unreasonable request at all times.

Of course not. I'll be frank: I find it an unreasonable request here. You've been unable to truly give me an example of someone 'shouting' and until such time as you prove to me someone really is in need of a time out (and has not already been called upon so by others), I will continue to think it's an unreasonable request in this instance.

Hang on - I thought this was supposed to be a legitimate complaint - everything you've said so far indicated that you believed that this is a perfectly reasoanble thing to say.

I said it was sometimes reasonable. Situations vary. In this case, I unequivocally do not agree that such a statement is reasonable nor desired. I think it's derailing in the extreme.

I can only say that I have seen people very-much put off by rudeness in a variety of discussions

Back to my first point: if they're being rude, to you, then you need to look at why and see what you can do to stop the cause their reacting to. Again, no one's going to be nice to you if you aren't nice to them.

I said "My point is that they offer absolutely no evidence that shouting _does_ work. And in my experience, shouting pushes people away more than anything else."
I stand by that.

And their response was that being polite also does not work. You're asking people to be superhuman about their hurts, by trying to be polite despite many years of that not working. I don't care how many times you state that shouting doesn't work. It's better than banging your head into a brick wall which is pretty much what's happened, sometimes for people's entire lives.

And, frankly, I think you're wrong: it got you to post here, and actually talk about this with people involved. That's working, to my mind.

Let's put it this way - I've not had a problem with anyone else's comments here. I did have with Kynn's. This would tend to indicate that there was something different about them.

Please understand I am doing my utmost to phrase this in a way I think you will be receptive towards. This is, often, incredibly frustrating to me because I am basically proving to you that if you dictate something, people will respond. This bothers me a lot. I am trying very, very hard to be reasonable despite provocation. Kynn decided early on that you were not arguing in good faith (which I somewhat agree with) and decided that you were not worthy of politeness, respect, or decorum.

I am quite honestly getting there myself.

Have a good evening (or, well, morning if you see this then)!

[andrewducker]

Then you really need to take a look at how you were phrasing your initial post because your intent may to have been to state a preference. Your words dictated terms.

Are you talking about my main thesis:
"in my experience, shouting pushes people away more than anything else."
?

Or the bit at the end?
"If someone has evidence that shouting at bigots actually achieves any good then I would be very happy to hear it. Provided that it's presented to me in a reasonable, non-offensive manner. I may even change my mind :->"

Because if it's the former then I stand by it, and can't see how it's possibly dictating terms. If it's the latter, then the smiley is there for a reason.

If you are less likely to take being shouted at reasonably, then you need to sit down and look at why people are shouting and try to change it.

I have. I am. But (a)it's hard and (b)I'm a nice enough guy that I _want_ to change. But I know from both my experience, and general reading that displays of anger trigger the fight/flight reflex, causing a tendency towards either defensiveness or the abandonment of discussion. This isn't me saying "People _should_ stop listening when there is anger." it's me saying "in my experience, shouting pushes people away more than anything else."

And yes, I'm asking people to be superhuman relative to their hurts, as you are asking me to be superhuman about my all-too-human responses to anger. Both of these are _great_ ideals. We should all aspire to more. And we should all be understanding when people fail.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

I am taking your whole post, as well as the comments. Specifically your agreement with how I distilled it (If you are nice to me, then I will be nice to you).

Your attempting to parse something you've already proven you're willing to change.

I have. I am. But (a)it's hard and (b)I'm a nice enough guy that I _want_ to change

I'll be honest. So far, I have seen a lot of statements from you that indicate you are potentially willing to look at a problem and change your behavior (which is admittedly incredibly hard and we all fuck it up; no one on any side would disagree) but so far I have seen no actual evidence of this. You are not talking about the problem. You are talking about how you might best handle the problem.

That's derailing. So here's my final attempt. Prove to me people are actually shouting (not being rude, as you later called it, but shouting the way you initially phrased it) in posts where the outcome is supposed to be constructive (as in, not pnh's post since his purpose was to be dismissive and cutting. He succeeded) and scaring you away from genuinely discussing what's going on.

I don't think you can. I think you're more interested in saying that if we were all just nice, we'd all get along which has nothing to do with people being afraid to stay in sf/f fandom because they feel so unwelcome, mocked, belittled, and ignored. You aren't discussing how at this point? I'm never buying an SF book again and I suspect I will only be using the library for fantasy. You aren't discussing what you can do to really change this attitude: only how you want the conversation to be handled. Not the genuine conversation.

I am almost tempted to ask you to prove where this shouting you so despair of actually is, but at this point, I don't care.

I'm done.

[andrewducker]

Prove to me people are actually shouting (not being rude, as you later called it, but shouting the way you initially phrased it) in posts where the outcome is supposed to be constructive

Actually, you're right.

Looking back at the debate with some distance, and without the filter of a variety of people telling me that "everyone is being unreasonable", and then, rather than taking comments at face value, but actually looking back up the thread to see _why_ they are upset, I find a lot more reasonable discussion than I thought there would be.

Which serves me right for listening to other people's reportage of a situation rather than investigating myself.

Not only that, but it took a fair amount of bluntness from you to actually make me take yet more time out from work and actually trawl through the posts and look. Which is an argument against the actual point of my post.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Which is an argument against the actual point of my post.

True. In addition, you completely infuriated me in your comment-before-this and in my own teeth-gritting way, I was shouting at you. Which also proves my point, as that comment (among other things) got the most desired for response.

Win one for irony?

and without the filter of a variety of people telling me that "everyone is being unreasonable", and then, rather than taking comments at face value, but actually looking back up the thread to see _why_ they are upset, I find a lot more reasonable discussion than I thought there would be.

This is unrelated to you, in particular, but the fact that there are people going around and saying things like this makes me nuclear. I get why you trusted those people, totally. They were friends or reliable acquaintances who first started mentioning it, which is how you learned about it. It's how I did, too (although mine were more like OMG LOOK AT THIS SHIT! *g*). That's entirely reasonable and no fault to you. I'm glad you did take the time to actually start reading what was being said, as opposed to dismissive commentary.

But the fact alone that there is dismissive commentary is Derailing 101. It's classic. It's boring it's so classic and it pisses me off unreasonably.

This isn't an internet flame war or whatever stupid commentary people (lots; not you) are applying to this. Yes, there had been idiot behavior. I'm not going to claim that everyone behaves like sweetness and light: that'd be an outright lie. But the ones who are verging into unreasonable behavior are not, in fact, the ones claiming most strenuously that they're being forced out and made to feel unwelcome. Those people are doing things like verb_noire and trying to be constructive in their dismay and upset.

And when they get called "malignant fuckwitted trolls" and the like, to come across a post like yours was initially is like a slap in the face.

And yes, to be clear, that is completely me venting and only barely tangentially related to you :)

Thank you, again, for taking the time to actually read what's going on and evaluate it yourself.

[andrewducker]

It's a pleasure - thank you for taking the time to talk me round.

Of course, if you'd started off with the teeth-gritting anger then you'd *probably* have proved my point, which probably says something as well - mostly about all of this being very situational.

I took a closer look at what happened with pnh - the actual conversaion of which now seems to have vanished (or at least the links pointing that way keep ending at dead ends to me) and it looks *to me* like he wandered into the middle of a discussion, made a careless comment, and when challenged used entirely the wrong metaphors to try and explain himself, thus enraging people further because he wasn't listening in the context of the bigger picture they were engaging in.

I'm not sure there's much you can do about that, except to try and watch out for tone, and assume that people are trying their best. Sadly, so much of the internet _is_ filled with malignant fuckwitted trolls that people seem primed to assume that any insult is due to that, rather than because they've just said something dumb.

If you grew up in flamewars then every raised voice looks like a flamewar. If you grew up with racism then every ignorant comment looks like racism. Combine these two things and you have a recipe for RaceFail.

Hopefully people will learn from it. Well, some people. A bit. Maybe. If we're lucky.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Of course, if you'd started off with the teeth-gritting anger then you'd *probably* have proved my point, which probably says something as well - mostly about all of this being very situational.

I'll agree to the situational, but that's about it. You, although far more gracefully, like pnh wandered into something you didn't have any concrete knowledge about, made a comment that was at best simplistic (his was flippant and insulting), and then wondered why people who'd been discussing this as politely as possible were suddenly no longer polite.

I haven't been doing this publicly as long as others. I've got more reserves of patience (well; not much more, because I am not a patient person) because I haven't been having this conversation in various forms for the whole of my life, or even just the past three months.

So yes, it's situational. But when someone comes in late, it's up to them to own up to their coming in lateness and try to figure out what's going on first.

That you =/= you, andrewducker, btw.

the actual conversaion of which now seems to have vanished (or at least the links pointing that way keep ending at dead ends to me)

He pulled it and back then, nobody was screencapping as religiously as they are now. But your analysis is pretty close to my version of what I saw. I would add a little more about how pnh was, I think, frankly caught off guard when he was told that no, he was not the arbitrator of authority in these matters, and to kindly stfu until he'd read up a little more. This was, of course, said much more politely until he dug himself a nice hole.

I'm not sure there's much you can do about that, except to try and watch out for tone, and assume that people are trying their best

People can read. I know it's daunting, the amount of links out there, but there are a lot of good summaries with links to the few key specific entries. People can figure out what's actually going on first. I mean, you admitted full up that you didn't: that's all on you. You thought you were getting children being stupid and had no idea that this was really a lot closer to WWII. That is not the problem or the responsibility of those currently fighting bigger battles, or devoting their energies to things that will hopefully be more long-term constructive.

Again, that you =/= you, andrewtucker so much. You just make a really, really good example!

Hopefully people will learn from it. Well, some people. A bit. Maybe. If we're lucky.

Amen.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Argh, I'm sorry -- your name is ducker, and I have fumblefingers. My apologies :(

[andrewducker]

D's miles away from T! Looks more like a brain fumble - and one I'm used to :->

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Yes, a whole two keys away is 'miles'!

I am sorry, though, and more that you get that frequently. I don't know why I was thinking of Tucker to begin with (as I clearly must have).

[andrewducker]

People can read.

But they don't. And that's going to be an ongoing problem, because (for instance) I'm willing to bet that at least half the people that read me have never even heard of RaceFail. And yet I've ended up with a 220-comment post that's tangentially connected to it. People are going to continue blundering into it, because the internet is large, and SF fandom is small, and so they've not seen the context. And my post, for instance, didn't have more than a teeny amount of context - so most of the people here will have avoided it entirely, and possibly merely been left with the impression that "RaceFail means a lot of people being upset. I'll stay well away."

I'm not sure if anything can be done about that. I'm not even sure if anything should be.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree. But if they're not going to read, then why should they get consideration when they are a) told to read and b) act offended when they're called on their lack of understanding?

At this point we're verging into Why Are Humans Humans for which no one has ever had a good answer and no one has ever had a good way of stopping the ball tumbling down the hill before it becomes an avalanche.

It still frustrates the hell out of me. I'll be perfectly nice if I'm given basic consideration. That is, pretty much, the heart of what's going on: people are saying they aren't getting it. And those who are being tacitly lumped into the group of people not giving it are losing their minds.

Which is also human and predictable and annoying.

[andrewducker]

I'll be perfectly nice if I'm given basic consideration.
Funny, I said that, and I got shouted at :->
Because what is "basic consideration" varies dramatically from person to person, as does "politeness", "reasonable display of anger" and a whole bunch of other stuff.

But yes, you're right, we're veering off into "Damn humans!" which never gets anyone anywhere.

I hear the Cylons have it better.

And really - don't worry about mistyping my name, it really doesn't bother me.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Funny, I said that, and I got shouted at :->

But you said it from the pov of someone who thought they were being nice and, when told you in fact weren't, reacted in a predictably frustrating and derailing way.

Don't confuse the issue, please. This isn't about "my feelings are hurt, pet me" it's "someone's feelings are hurt and they're upset: I need to listen to what I'm doing to contribute instead of demanding pettings."

Or something suitably male for 'petting'. That's what I'm after, usually :)

The name thing may not bother you, which I appreciate, but it bothers me. I hate botching someone's name; it's needlessly and carelessly rude.

[andrewducker]

See the smiley at the end of the first sentence. That's meant to indicate that you shouldn't take it seriously.

But as you have:
"you said it from the pov of someone who thought they were being nice and, when told you in fact weren't, reacted in a predictably frustrating and derailing way."

No, I didn't. I said it from a general point of view, and I was then derailed from my original point, which, as I've said repeatedly, I still stand by: "in my experience, shouting pushes people away more than anything else."

I certainly wasn't derailing RaceFail - that's happily going on without me on the rest of the internet.

Or are you talking about somethign else that I'm misunderstanding?

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

Well, something that could be done, at least in terms of your readers, is that you could post again, pointing out for the benefit of those who aren't stalking the thread, that you did in fact change your mind in response to some of the comments, and why.

[andrewducker]

Good suggestion.

Well, except that I didn't change my mind about my original statement. But I did learn more about RaceFail, and that can be disseminated.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

Gah. I want to reply to this properly, but am typing on my phone. Have you realized that when people are disparaging the tone argument they're not disagreeing with your original statement either?

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you! There are two parts to this (okay, many parts to it) and most of us are smart enough to focus on one without denying the other.

[andrewducker]

Yes. They're objecting to a variety of things, from perceptions of me "trying to shut down the argument" to me saying that "they have no right to be angry". Which I wasn't saying, but those things are traditionally connected to the tone argument.

[andrewducker]

Made a stab at it. I'd appreciate your comments, if you have any.