frelling_tralk (
frelling_tralk) wrote2011-04-02 11:33 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I'm kind of over this "tone argument" tbh. I was always brought up to believe that, however angry or upset someone makes you, the way you choose to speak to them in response does matter
no subject
No one is saying you HAVE to be polite, but... it's not a bad idea to try, you know? "You catch more flies with honey" is a famous saying for a reason.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Confronting people who have behaved in a bigoted manner or have done some other sort of wrong is certainly ok, but that doesn't justify calling everything bigotry.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I have been running across especially strident and rigid ranters a lot recently. I think the style comes in and out of vogue a bit.
no subject
Judging by their info page I'm not surprised the atmosphere is hostile.
no subject
no subject
If someone is trolling over and over then fine, or someone who refuses to take onboard what you are saying period then I understand losing your patience, but new posters who make mistakes in genuine ignorance seem to get treated in the same way, as if they are deliberately being hurtful and offensive. And at the comm I'm talking about, a new poster used the word skank in a different community, was told that it was an offensive word to use, she apologised, said she didn't realise, and wouldn't use it again. And in response she was berated by so many members for not apologising in the correct manner that she ended up leaving the comm. And I do think that half of the ~outrage is just an excuse to gang up on one person and get your special membership kudos
no subject
Oh fuck yeah. The people that won't let others apologize drive me nuts. A little coaching may be in line in some cases, but if someone takes a conciliatory tone and you just bitch them out for falling short it really is counter productive in getting the message across. Learned helplessness and all that.
no subject
In the example that frustrated me, the poster (who was only 16 no less) used the word skank in another comm, apologised when it was pointed out to her that it's a misogynistic insult, and joined
no subject
no subject
I can't see the post. Can you tell me the gist of it?
Was she given out to over ways apologizing on the feminist comm or elsewhere?
no subject
And sorry, I was sure that it was unlocked when I linked it. Perhaps it's been locked since
no subject
no subject
Man even with apologies, it feels like the natural thing to say "I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings" or "I'm sorry if I offended you", but that will get you jumped all over because you're supposed to actually say "I'm sorry that I was hurtful", "I'm sorry that I was offensive". And you cannot expect new members to understand all this, but by golly won't they get leapt on by about 20 posters for a "faux apology" if they do dare to word something the wrong way
no subject
The dog-piling by social justice types is infuriating. God forbid someone do something that is interpreted as intentionally bigotted.
*sigh*
no subject
Jeez, that's totally unreasonable. Correct way to appologize? Thought police!
no subject
I mean, I've been on the receiving end of a genuine "tone argument". After a particularly angry feminist post, a commenter derailed by bringing up how very mean I was being and how my message would be better if I were calmer. That? Textbook tone argument. (especially as the commenter was a man)
However, it often seems that people use the specter of a preemptive tone argument to justify being overtly hostile to...everybody. I understand anger in response to offense. However, there is a line between justified anger and abusiveness. Plus, it often feels like point-scoring as to who can come up with the most biting, snarky response to a person. I don't think anger should be competitive in such a fashion.
no subject
And that's a long way from someone from the actual minority group in question losing their patience at being met with closed ears and "I'm offended that you're offended", which is how I originally understood the tone argument to work
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject