(no subject)

[frelling_tralk]

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

Comments

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

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.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

Your comment about point-scoring rings very true to me because, in my on-line experience, I have to say that some of the most hostile behaviour I have witnessed has come from self-called allies who seem to almost be trying to differentiate themselves and score extra points by jumping on someone (who screwed up in some manner) in the rudest/most sarcastic way they can.

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