Total Posts:147|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Problem with Tone-Policing

lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"It's cruel and ridiculous to expect a person to be calm and polite in response to an act of oppression. Marginalized people often do not have the luxury of emotionally distancing themselves from discussions on their rights and experiences.

"Tone policing is the ultimate derailing tactic. When you tone police, you automatically shift the focus of the conversation away from what you or someone else did that was wrong, and onto the other person and their reaction. Tone policing is a way of not taking responsibility for fvcking up, and it dismisses the other person's position by framing it as being emotional and therefore irrational.

"But being emotional does not make one's points any less valid. It's also important to note that, by tone policing, you not only refuse to examine your own oppressive behavior, but you also can blame that on the other person, because they were not "nice enough" to be listened to or taken seriously.

"Tone policing assumes that the oppressive act is not an act of aggression, when it very much is. The person who was oppressed by the action, suddenly is no longer a victim, but is "victimizing" the other person by calling them out. [...] But anger is valid. Anger is valid, anger is important, anger brings social change, anger makes people listen, anger is threatening, and anger is passion. Anger is NOT counterproductive; being "nice" is counterproductive. Nobody was ever given rights by politely asking for them. Politeness is nothing but a set of behavioral expectations that is enforced upon marginalized people."

http://groupthink.kinja.com... --> change the ! in the web address to i

The irony is that if you call a while male "privileged" he gets very angry and upset (while claiming to not be...?) but if you say or do something racist, the racialized person is expected to respond with respect. For those who tone-police, how about you engage in this discussion first and foremost with respect if you want me to talk to you?
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:56:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:

'But anger is valid. Anger is valid, anger is important, anger brings social change, anger makes people listen, anger is threatening, and anger is passion.'

That central tenet just isn't true. Anger is understandable, but it isn't productive. It is predictable, and can be exploited, and that is exactly what is being done right now. In the end, anger is only marginally useful because it cannot stop and make strategic decisions, it cannot act based on predictions of possible outcomes. It is blind, stupid, and impotent, and it infantilizes those who feel it. The people at the top of this social ladder reached that position by being detached and merciless, not emotional and wanton.

Just listen to the whole piece; if potential agents for change followed her advice, all that they would ever do is scream at one another about their feelings without ever accomplishing anything. Which is why the entire political and social establishment backs movements like this to the hilt: it completely neuters social justice advocacy. The dichotomy isn't between anger and 'politeness', it's between a politically crippled emotional support group and a lean, motivated, and brutally efficient engine for change. An effective movement is managed and organized, it puts its finger to the wind before acting, it's smart about its propaganda and those whom it chooses to represent it. It doesn't just scream into the void because it feels good.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:12:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Making personal attacks tends to undermine healthy and productive discussion, as it leads people to become more defensive and entrenched in their viewpoint. If your goal is to change people's minds, don't insult them - someone who feels insulted will devote their energy to defending themselves against your attack and will regard you as their enemy. They will become even more committed to disagreeing with you. There's a difference between being serious and passionate, which is appropriate, and being overly harsh and abusive, which is not. Changing someone's mind is already hard enough, and next to impossible when emotions contaminate the dialogue. The best approach to take is to be level-headed and relentlessly stick to the facts.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 11:02:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:
The irony is that if you call a while male "privileged" he gets very angry and upset ...

But being emotional does not make one's points any less valid.

Good job
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 1:54:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:
"It's cruel and ridiculous to expect a person to be calm and polite in response to an act of oppression. Marginalized people often do not have the luxury of emotionally distancing themselves from discussions on their rights and experiences.

"Tone policing is the ultimate derailing tactic. When you tone police, you automatically shift the focus of the conversation away from what you or someone else did that was wrong, and onto the other person and their reaction. Tone policing is a way of not taking responsibility for fvcking up, and it dismisses the other person's position by framing it as being emotional and therefore irrational.

"But being emotional does not make one's points any less valid. It's also important to note that, by tone policing, you not only refuse to examine your own oppressive behavior, but you also can blame that on the other person, because they were not "nice enough" to be listened to or taken seriously.

"Tone policing assumes that the oppressive act is not an act of aggression, when it very much is. The person who was oppressed by the action, suddenly is no longer a victim, but is "victimizing" the other person by calling them out. [...] But anger is valid. Anger is valid, anger is important, anger brings social change, anger makes people listen, anger is threatening, and anger is passion. Anger is NOT counterproductive; being "nice" is counterproductive. Nobody was ever given rights by politely asking for them. Politeness is nothing but a set of behavioral expectations that is enforced upon marginalized people."

http://groupthink.kinja.com... --> change the ! in the web address to i

The irony is that if you call a while male "privileged" he gets very angry and upset (while claiming to not be...?) but if you say or do something racist, the racialized person is expected to respond with respect. For those who tone-police, how about you engage in this discussion first and foremost with respect if you want me to talk to you?

This is highly naive, and kind of sad to read.
Tsar of DDO
Rosalie
Posts: 4,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:13:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago

The irony is that if you call a while male "privileged" he gets very angry and upset (while claiming to not be...?) but if you say or do something racist, the racialized person is expected to respond with respect. For those who tone-police, how about you engage in this discussion first and foremost with respect if you want me to talk to you?

That's funny...kind of reminds me when you tell someone they dress like a prostitute, and they get upset, even though they aren't one.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
Rosalie
Posts: 4,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:17:25 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I totally agree with this. Its along the lines of feminism. When talking to a feminist, some people feel the need to antagonize women to get them all worked up to the point of the feminist saying things he/she normally wouldn't say, and this is because many people dislike feminism.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:43:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:56:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:

'But anger is valid. Anger is valid, anger is important, anger brings social change, anger makes people listen, anger is threatening, and anger is passion.'

That central tenet just isn't true. Anger is understandable, but it isn't productive. It is predictable, and can be exploited, and that is exactly what is being done right now. In the end, anger is only marginally useful because it cannot stop and make strategic decisions, it cannot act based on predictions of possible outcomes. It is blind, stupid, and impotent, and it infantilizes those who feel it. The people at the top of this social ladder reached that position by being detached and merciless, not emotional and wanton.

What is the basis for everything you are saying? You can't just drop a bunch of unvalidated statements as if they are fact or truth. There's this myth that emotions somehow impair decision-making. That's just not true: http://amj.aom.org...

Just listen to the whole piece; if potential agents for change followed her advice, all that they would ever do is scream at one another about their feelings without ever accomplishing anything.

Strawman. Where in this piece does she advocate screaming? I would like to point you to my thread about privilege. Nowhere in there did I figuratively scream at anyone, nor did I insult anyone. It is possible to be angry and not scream at people or insult them.

Which is why the entire political and social establishment backs movements like this to the hilt: it completely neuters social justice advocacy. The dichotomy isn't between anger and 'politeness', it's between a politically crippled emotional support group and a lean, motivated, and brutally efficient engine for change. An effective movement is managed and organized, it puts its finger to the wind before acting, it's smart about its propaganda and those whom it chooses to represent it. It doesn't just scream into the void because it feels good.

When you define anger as "screaming" you're just strawmanning the position. Again, I will refer you to the privilege thread. I was tone-policed, despite having a neutral tone and despite not attacking anyone - I was attacked by a group of angry white males who claimed to not be angry and not one of them was tone-policed. I don't know why you can't see that.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:43:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:17:25 AM, Rosalie wrote:
I totally agree with this. Its along the lines of feminism. When talking to a feminist, some people feel the need to antagonize women to get them all worked up to the point of the feminist saying things he/she normally wouldn't say, and this is because many people dislike feminism.

The original post was from a feminist blog. And absolutely.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:44:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:12:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Making personal attacks tends to undermine healthy and productive discussion, as it leads people to become more defensive and entrenched in their viewpoint. If your goal is to change people's minds, don't insult them - someone who feels insulted will devote their energy to defending themselves against your attack and will regard you as their enemy. They will become even more committed to disagreeing with you. There's a difference between being serious and passionate, which is appropriate, and being overly harsh and abusive, which is not. Changing someone's mind is already hard enough, and next to impossible when emotions contaminate the dialogue. The best approach to take is to be level-headed and relentlessly stick to the facts.

I'm gonna stop you right there. Why are you assuming that anger = personal attacks?

Like Skep, I would refer you to the privilege thread. Read the first page and tell me who's attacking who.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:59:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:
"It's cruel and ridiculous to expect a person to be calm and polite in response to an act of oppression. Marginalized people often do not have the luxury of emotionally distancing themselves from discussions on their rights and experiences.

"Tone policing is the ultimate derailing tactic. When you tone police, you automatically shift the focus of the conversation away from what you or someone else did that was wrong, and onto the other person and their reaction. Tone policing is a way of not taking responsibility for fvcking up, and it dismisses the other person's position by framing it as being emotional and therefore irrational.

"But being emotional does not make one's points any less valid. It's also important to note that, by tone policing, you not only refuse to examine your own oppressive behavior, but you also can blame that on the other person, because they were not "nice enough" to be listened to or taken seriously.

"Tone policing assumes that the oppressive act is not an act of aggression, when it very much is. The person who was oppressed by the action, suddenly is no longer a victim, but is "victimizing" the other person by calling them out. [...] But anger is valid. Anger is valid, anger is important, anger brings social change, anger makes people listen, anger is threatening, and anger is passion. Anger is NOT counterproductive; being "nice" is counterproductive. Nobody was ever given rights by politely asking for them. Politeness is nothing but a set of behavioral expectations that is enforced upon marginalized people."

http://groupthink.kinja.com... --> change the ! in the web address to i

The irony is that if you call a while male "privileged" he gets very angry and upset (while claiming to not be...?) but if you say or do something racist, the racialized person is expected to respond with respect. For those who tone-police, how about you engage in this discussion first and foremost with respect if you want me to talk to you?

I'm too busy to provide a thorough reply, but I will say that you are describing a common deflection tactic. If someone cannot or does not want to engage with the substance of what is being discussed, they may instead narrow in on how it is being discussed. This is not only done to give the appearance that they are engaging in the discourse, but also to try to invalidate the original speaker as somehow beneath some imagined standard of civility. That kind of response is a distraction and should be treated as such.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 3:17:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 11:02:25 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:
The irony is that if you call a while male "privileged" he gets very angry and upset ...

But being emotional does not make one's points any less valid.

Good job

Not sure of your point here. If you would elucidate, then I could actually respond. From what I think you're trying to say, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy with which the people on this forum tone-police.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 3:25:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:59:26 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:
"It's cruel and ridiculous to expect a person to be calm and polite in response to an act of oppression. Marginalized people often do not have the luxury of emotionally distancing themselves from discussions on their rights and experiences.

"Tone policing is the ultimate derailing tactic. When you tone police, you automatically shift the focus of the conversation away from what you or someone else did that was wrong, and onto the other person and their reaction. Tone policing is a way of not taking responsibility for fvcking up, and it dismisses the other person's position by framing it as being emotional and therefore irrational.

"But being emotional does not make one's points any less valid. It's also important to note that, by tone policing, you not only refuse to examine your own oppressive behavior, but you also can blame that on the other person, because they were not "nice enough" to be listened to or taken seriously.

"Tone policing assumes that the oppressive act is not an act of aggression, when it very much is. The person who was oppressed by the action, suddenly is no longer a victim, but is "victimizing" the other person by calling them out. [...] But anger is valid. Anger is valid, anger is important, anger brings social change, anger makes people listen, anger is threatening, and anger is passion. Anger is NOT counterproductive; being "nice" is counterproductive. Nobody was ever given rights by politely asking for them. Politeness is nothing but a set of behavioral expectations that is enforced upon marginalized people."

http://groupthink.kinja.com... --> change the ! in the web address to i

The irony is that if you call a while male "privileged" he gets very angry and upset (while claiming to not be...?) but if you say or do something racist, the racialized person is expected to respond with respect. For those who tone-police, how about you engage in this discussion first and foremost with respect if you want me to talk to you?

I'm too busy to provide a thorough reply, but I will say that you are describing a common deflection tactic. If someone cannot or does not want to engage with the substance of what is being discussed, they may instead narrow in on how it is being discussed. This is not only done to give the appearance that they are engaging in the discourse, but also to try to invalidate the original speaker as somehow beneath some imagined standard of civility. That kind of response is a distraction and should be treated as such.

Yep. The issue with that is:

1) People will tone-police Black people and women even when Black people/Black women/women are being civil or neutral.

2) The assumption of neutrality is stupid in the first place.

3) #2 is highlighted even further when you say anything that gets white males angry. They will say talking a certain way isn't conducive out of one side of their mouths, then insult and attack and berate "SJWs" out of the other side of their mouths.

The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is astounding.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 4:03:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:56:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I have an Intro Psych textbook in my office that I believe details a study (or studies) where being emotional does not make a person worse at decision-making. If I remember when I'm on campus tomorrow, I will post it here.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 4:43:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:43:26 AM, lamerde wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:56:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:

'But anger is valid. Anger is valid, anger is important, anger brings social change, anger makes people listen, anger is threatening, and anger is passion.'

That central tenet just isn't true. Anger is understandable, but it isn't productive. It is predictable, and can be exploited, and that is exactly what is being done right now. In the end, anger is only marginally useful because it cannot stop and make strategic decisions, it cannot act based on predictions of possible outcomes. It is blind, stupid, and impotent, and it infantilizes those who feel it. The people at the top of this social ladder reached that position by being detached and merciless, not emotional and wanton.

What is the basis for everything you are saying? You can't just drop a bunch of unvalidated statements as if they are fact or truth. There's this myth that emotions somehow impair decision-making. That's just not true: http://amj.aom.org...

That's a pretty big oversimplification; anger affects people in a lot of different ways, but it does cause a lot of distortions in perception. It also has unique effects in a group context like the one that we're discussing. This study isn't even specifically about anger, it's about general emotional state. Emotions evolved for a reason: a specific response to a specific situation. They come with benefits and drawbacks, and feeling anger as if it's some source of arcane power just isn't tenable. Most of the biggest benefits of anger, actually, could be accessed just by feigning it, as a lot of them have to do with negotiation (people tend to give more up to an angry negotiator than a calm one).

I'm not saying 'never feel anything', I'm saying that it's best to see the emotion as a tool instead of seeing it as a foregone conclusion. If you're at the negotiating table with someone who won't budge, try and project anger to get them to move their goalposts. If you're feeling pessimistic, anger can be motivational. But if you're unrealistically optimistic, anger will only compound your problem.

Just listen to the whole piece; if potential agents for change followed her advice, all that they would ever do is scream at one another about their feelings without ever accomplishing anything.

Strawman. Where in this piece does she advocate screaming? I would like to point you to my thread about privilege. Nowhere in there did I figuratively scream at anyone, nor did I insult anyone. It is possible to be angry and not scream at people or insult them.

You didn't, but the piece which you linked to definitely did, and social justice advocates are becoming increasingly prone to it. And it was a figure of speech. My point is that in giving people the 'benefit of the doubt' when it comes to their emotions, and never examining whether those emotions are productive to a set of goals, sets up this constant 'airing of the grievances' dynamic. It doesn't really have to do with screaming or insulting, but with the idea that a person should not examine their own emotions for legitimacy, and that others attempting to do so is somehow sacrilegious.

Which is why the entire political and social establishment backs movements like this to the hilt: it completely neuters social justice advocacy. The dichotomy isn't between anger and 'politeness', it's between a politically crippled emotional support group and a lean, motivated, and brutally efficient engine for change. An effective movement is managed and organized, it puts its finger to the wind before acting, it's smart about its propaganda and those whom it chooses to represent it. It doesn't just scream into the void because it feels good.

When you define anger as "screaming" you're just strawmanning the position. Again, I will refer you to the privilege thread. I was tone-policed, despite having a neutral tone and despite not attacking anyone - I was attacked by a group of angry white males who claimed to not be angry and not one of them was tone-policed. I don't know why you can't see that.

The problem in that thread was twofold: firstly, the piece that you linked to had a very different tenor when compared to your own posts. And secondly, there was a lot of vitriol about you personally that was spread around before that thread, and which wormed its way out of the woodwork during it.

As for 'tone-policing', I don't think that it's productive on an individual basis. I think that it's much more productive to explain to a calm person why emotions (especially our own emotions) need to be examined in an impartial way where possible, and why the cultivation of self control is necessary in order to affect change, than it is to tell an upset person to 'tone it down' when they're in an excited state. My problem with progressive activism is that it has granted emotions this inviolable status, instead of seeing them as means to an end. As a result, the 'end' often gets forgotten as people are lost in a bizarre confessional fog.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 5:28:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 3:17:54 AM, lamerde wrote:

I'm not familiar with the attempts of tone-policing on this forum.

Rather, I was pointing out the fact that it is irrelevant if white males become angry when you point out their privilege, as you already pointed out. That's because being emotional doesn't invalidate one's points.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 6:00:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:

Not sure exactly what is meant by "tone-policing."

Could you please provide a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate?
Call me King Pootie Tang.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 1:52:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 6:00:30 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:

Not sure exactly what is meant by "tone-policing."

Could you please provide a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate?

In general, I the OP is not clear on what she means by tone-policing either. It's a nebulous, and, consequentially, meaningless word meant to evoke a certain emotional reaction from people while garnering sympathy for those who put forward ideas that others disagree with.

Whatever constitutes "tone policing" is going to be when someone disagrees with radical or otherwise problematic idea espoused by, for example, the OP. Anything not disagreeing with the substance of what the OP says, similarly, is not going to be "tone policing."

This is why reasonable people cannot take seriously either the OP, or all those who agree with her ideas posted in this thread and others within the scope of the same "regime" of thought.

There ostensibly appears to be some form of thought and substance behind it at first glance, but a deeper consideration of this kind of ideas, and the principles behind those ideas, reveals at once their hollowness and intellectual inadequacy.

By "hollowness" what I mean is that the OP lacks substance: if anything in conflict with the OP is "tone policing" then the OP is solely engaged in laying the foundation to use ad hom attacks in response to those who oppose the ideas she puts forward.

By "intellectual inadequacy" what I mean is that the OP is not making solid arguments that are intellectually grounded, but in the alternative is making emotionally driven arguments whose persuasive force begins and ends with appeals to emotion. While I don't have a problem with arguments that are, themselves, guided by emotion (because emotional and substantial arguments are not mutually exclusive; i.e. an argument can be both substantial and emotional), arguments that are *only* emotionally driven aren't the kind that have any kind of intellectual rigor or merit at all.

(The above are basically the problems with both the OP and all those who would, in their own rite, come to regard the ideas that she has put forward as worthy of consideration beyond the time it takes to explain why they're meritless.)

The reason I point all of this out is because I think a lot of people, at first glance, might be mislead by the kinds of ideas that the OP has suggested, and, likewise, caused to labor under the mistaken impression that, for example, "tone policing" is an observable phenomenon.

Tone policing, conceptually, is substantively identical to other devices of feigned victimhood, like, for example, micro-aggressions. It's just non-existent: if everything is a micro-aggression, then nothing is a micro-aggression, because we can't reasonably divide that which is, in fact, micro-aggressive from that which is not. Likewise, if everything that is in conflict with the ideas and notions that the OP supports is 'tone policing', then nothing is 'tone policing' because there is no way to distinguish, for example, substantive rebuttal from "keeping the blacks in their place" -as the OP would implicitly suggest.

As I have indicated elsewhere, that entire modality of thought which births concepts like this is totally toxic; both for the individual espousing the ideas, and the groups that attract such individuals. Those same ideas are, likewise, seriously harmful to race-based social justice initiatives, because if the only people who are concerned with social justice, or, rather, the most visible people connected with social justice are ones who are whining about "tone policing" or "micro-aggressions" --the rest of society at large is going to do nothing other than roll their eyes, as they would be rightfully entitled to do.

Of course, the OP and those like the OP will never understand this and, likewise, probably lack the capacity to understand the implications of their actions and choices. (If they had such capacity, they would refocus their methods of advocacy.) But the point remains: there is nothing of substance or value contained in this or any other OP that stems from such schools of thought. The totality of it all has no substance, and is totally meaningless.
Tsar of DDO
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:02:38 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 4:43:29 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I don't really have the time to respond to you point-by-point so I'm going to summarize what I think you're saying and you can tell me where I'm wrong.

What I hear you saying is:

1) Emotions should never dictate the course of a discussion.

2) Your emotions as a white male should take precedence over other people's emotions in dictating the course of a discussion. (Notice how I had to say take precedence rather than privilege to placate your feelings about the word?)
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:05:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
That awkward moment when someone continues to insert themselves in discussions a person they hate is having, knowing that the other person isn't interested in reading their posts... it's like parallel play.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:10:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 5:28:02 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/26/2016 3:17:54 AM, lamerde wrote:

I'm not familiar with the attempts of tone-policing on this forum.

There are none. It simply does not happen. But, the fact that the OP would regard "white males" disagreeing with what she says (while both categorizing the speakers who have responded to her, and failing to understand the nature of their reaction) speaks volumes to the substance--or, rather, the lack thereof--of what she's got to say on the issue.

As I said in response to another user, "tone policing" is a non-existent phenomenon. It just doesn't happen; the concept is so broad that it's meaningless. By "broad" what I mean is that "there is no way to distinguish 'tone policing' from substantive rebuttal to what the OP has said."

The fact is that any reasonable person engaged in reasonable discussions with others on issues of social and societal concern is going to rebut the *substance* of arguments made that are in conflict with their particular ideas. No reasonable person is going to summarily reject the arguments made against their position on the basis of those arguments being made by people who are of a certain race or gender, yet, that is exactly what the OP (and others who support the OP) have been engaged in for some time on this forum.

The concept of "tone policing" is therefore introduced as an alternative to substantive rebuttal: because they are incapable of rebutting what was said, that is in conflict with their understanding of the world (and they are), their alternative strategy is to invent a reason why the perspective that is in conflict with theirs should be dismissed on the basis of certain *qualities* of those who expressed disagreement. This is an intellectually dishonest form of discourse, and it's properly identified as ad hominem fallacy.

However, this particular type of ad hominem fallacy appears to be less than fallacious, or, at least worthy of consideration because it *appears* to be based in consideration for historically disenfranchised groups, and meant for their "empowerment" or whatever. The problem is that that specific method of reasoning is circular, and meaningless: after all, if everything that white people say that disagrees with the OP is "tone policing" then white people must either agree or stay silent. Do you understand the power dynamic at play? The objective is to silence white people, best case, or, at least compel through norms of political correctness white people's agreement. By now, you should have realized--and you probably have--that this is basically a form of intellectual extortion and/or blackmail. And it is.

But the reality is that there are many of us who see this kind of activism for what it is: intellectual trash. I've used that phrase before, and I've been cautioned by others that I should avoid using it because it plays into the social-justice-warrior narrative of feigned victimhood. For example, if I call their ideas intellectual trash, then they reframe that as an attack on all black people, and therefore I'm a racist or bigot or whatever. I am totally aware of that kind of reasoning, and I'm not afraid of it, which is why I continue to say things like "micro-aggressions are intellectual trash." So too is "tone policing" and for identical reasons.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:11:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:05:41 PM, lamerde wrote:
That awkward moment when someone continues to insert themselves in discussions a person they hate is having, knowing that the other person isn't interested in reading their posts... it's like parallel play.

If you weren't interested in reading what I wrote, then you wouldn't have written this post. Likewise, if it was within your capacity to substantially rebut anything I said, you would do so. But, you don't... instead, you make these passive aggressive posts about how you're too good to respond to anything that anyone says that is in conflict with what you say. It's a very weak and unpersuasive rhetorical method, that anyone can and should be able to see through.
Tsar of DDO
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:12:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 5:28:02 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/26/2016 3:17:54 AM, lamerde wrote:

I'm not familiar with the attempts of tone-policing on this forum.

Rather, I was pointing out the fact that it is irrelevant if white males become angry when you point out their privilege, as you already pointed out. That's because being emotional doesn't invalidate one's points.

It's been going on for as long as I've been a member here (6 years), but the most recent examples are in my privilege thread.

It's not irrelevant - I am pointing out the hypocrisy and contradiction of tone-policing. It's absolutely relevant when white males claim emotional superiority but get so upset over the word "privilege" that they become hostile and insult other people, while telling those same people that if their tone was more palatable to white males, there would be a proper discussion. It's relevant when, as evidenced by my thread, the only people getting emotional are the white males and yet I was the one who was tone-policed. Maikuru has also added to why it's problematic (it's a distraction tactic).
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:19:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The thing I want to be really clear about here is that tulle (lamerde)'s reason, which she repeatedly states, for rejecting those ideas which are in conflict with hers, is that they come from "emotional white males."

So, you shouldn't believe what, for example, I, Skep, FT, spacetime, etc. say, because--even though ironically FT is not white, and I have no idea what spacetime's race is--the ideas themselves were proffered by "emotional white males."

That method of reasoning is "offering qualities of a speaker as reasons to discount what the speaker says." We call this "ad hominem fallacy" --because that's exactly what it is.

But, it's actually worse than that: it's race bating.

The reason that tulle is engaged in race baiting is because of the nature of her ad hominem fallacy: the specific speaker-quality that she cites as the basis for rejecting what others (who disagree with her) say is their being white.

She is also engaged in gender baiting, in that the specific speaker quality that the OP is similarly identifying as a basis to reject what people who disagree with her say is the fact of their being "male."

Realize that all of this is going on, while the OP uses all kinds of specious adjectives to describe the "kinds" of reactions she gets.

All these white guys are "angry" and "emotional" or whatever, so, therefore you should just ignore what they're saying. The only "rational" perspective here is that of the victim, after all.

This is, of course, the stuff of absurdity. No one can take it seriously.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:23:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:19:34 PM, YYW wrote:
The thing I want to be really clear about here is that tulle (lamerde)'s reason, which she repeatedly states, for rejecting those ideas which are in conflict with hers, is that they come from "emotional white males."

So, you shouldn't believe what, for example, I, Skep, FT, spacetime, etc. say, because--even though ironically FT is not white, and I have no idea what spacetime's race is--the ideas themselves were proffered by "emotional white males."

That method of reasoning is "offering qualities of a speaker as reasons to discount what the speaker says." We call this "ad hominem fallacy" --because that's exactly what it is.

But, it's actually worse than that: it's race bating.

The reason that tulle is engaged in race baiting is because of the nature of her ad hominem fallacy: the specific speaker-quality that she cites as the basis for rejecting what others (who disagree with her) say is their being white.

She is also engaged in gender baiting, in that the specific speaker quality that the OP is similarly identifying as a basis to reject what people who disagree with her say is the fact of their being "male."

Realize that all of this is going on, while the OP uses all kinds of specious adjectives to describe the "kinds" of reactions she gets.

All these white guys are "angry" and "emotional" or whatever, so, therefore you should just ignore what they're saying. The only "rational" perspective here is that of the victim, after all.

This is, of course, the stuff of absurdity. No one can take it seriously.

On this basis, it would not be inaccurate for me to say something like "The OP must be a racist and a sexist, because she is engaged in race and gender baiting."
Tsar of DDO
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:36:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I'm sure I've missed people but, as in the Privilege thread, I'm not interested in sifting through garbage to get back to it. (though I will respond to you spacetime)

If you want me to respond to you, you will have to directly quote me. I've requested a restraining order and hopefully this won't be a problem in the future. Thanks.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:45:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:36:18 PM, lamerde wrote:
I'm sure I've missed people but, as in the Privilege thread, I'm not interested in sifting through garbage to get back to it. (though I will respond to you spacetime)

If you want me to respond to you, you will have to directly quote me. I've requested a restraining order and hopefully this won't be a problem in the future. Thanks.

Requesting a restraining order in response to substantive rebuttal is a pretty weak thing to do, and it is obviously an effort to silence opposition.

The significance of this should be lost on no one here, and I think that the fact that you just admitted this clearly proves each point I have made here correct.

If you can't rebut, then you attack. If you can't attack, then you try to silence.

This is why the ideas you have espoused here cannot be taken seriously, and moderation surely is not stupid enough to fall for your rouse here.
Tsar of DDO
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:52:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 6:00:30 AM, spacetime wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:10:05 PM, lamerde wrote:

Not sure exactly what is meant by "tone-policing."

Could you please provide a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate?

Tone-policing is exactly what it sounds like - policing a person's tone. An example would be when a marginalized person brings up a valid instance of oppression, rather than addressing that issue, a person says "I would listen to your arguments if you weren't so angry".

I would say it's a form of ad hominem, where you attack the person rather than the idea.

And sure, how people talk to you has an impact on how you respond to them. But there's this idea that a response to an angry person is somehow not emotional, or somehow more valid than the anger of the person bringing up an issue of oppression.

Again, the irony is the entitlement of some people who expect me to respond to them, despite their ad hominem attacks, insults, and trolling in my threads. I'm expected to respond to people who have no respect for me and who I have no respect for, people I have already stated I will no longer be engaging with (see sig). Why is it that only some people's tones are policed? That's what I want to know.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 3:15:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:12:01 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 1/26/2016 5:28:02 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/26/2016 3:17:54 AM, lamerde wrote:

I'm not familiar with the attempts of tone-policing on this forum.

It's been going on for as long as I've been a member here (6 years), but the most recent examples are in my privilege thread.

What went down in your privilege thread is not the same thing as what you described in your response to me. There is a pretty big difference between getting emotional while talking about the racial discrimination you've faced, and openly insulting people who did nothing to deserve such insults. The former is a natural human response; the latter is hypocritical, not to mention total overkill.
Call me King Pootie Tang.