#tone argument

[renardtrickster]

I was discussing the recent Pokimane drama with @belles--rose​, and while digging for details on twitter, I discovered someone on Poki’s server (who I am not entirely sure is a mod but may be) saying this.

A sentiment they continued to stand by on twitter. And it sparked the following discussion, which belles--rose told me I should turn into a post.

<renardTrickster> ...

<renardTrickster> And I have to say.

<renardTrickster> I REALLY HATE the "I mean no ill will but I disagree".

<renardTrickster> Because it's a prime example of that "let's meet in the middle says the unfair man" or something like that.

<renardTrickster> Where you're not actively saying "kill trans people" you're just saying "I don't think they're real or should have rights".

<renardTrickster> But hey man that's just my opinion, nevermind that my opinion is that they shouldn't exist.

<renardTrickster> And when you do eventually point out the logical conclusion of their belief, they deny it.

<belles--rose> It's like saying "I don't hate black people, I just think they shouldn't have human rights"

<renardTrickster> "Trans people aren't real IMO" "So you think they shouldn't be legally recognized and protected?" "Quit putting words in my mouth."

<renardTrickster> Especially when they try to say "oh I'm being respectful and civil" when they're not, they're acting civil.

<renardTrickster> If you think a trans woman is just a delusional man, by definition, you are not respectful.

<belles--rose> This.

<belles--rose> You aren't "respectful" or "civil" just because you aren't outright calling for people to be lynched

<renardTrickster> Especially because, it does eventually lead to that.

<renardTrickster> Not literal "words cause violence", but hear me out.

<renardTrickster> It starts at the individual level, "not trying to be respectful but I think trans people are full of it, I don't hate them though".

<renardTrickster> Normalizing bigotry and discrimination and straight-up false information by claiming civility, so you can't object because it's civil.

<renardTrickster> Your doghouse opinion spreads, more people buy into it. "Trans people aren't real or legitimate" becomes widespread.

<renardTrickster> This eventually "climbs the latter" and bigger people say it. Big names like Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Joe Rogan, with massive followings, say transphobic stuff but hide under the veneer of civility.

<renardTrickster> Then it reaches a political level, and "trans people are not legitimate" becomes written law, causing discrimination to be more or less sanctioned.

<renardTrickster> It's a nasty process, all oiled by the idea that just because you aren't sneering and spitting and calling for blood, you can't object.

[magdolenelives]

(via)

[gwydionmisha]

'Dr. King warned us about people like Chuck Schumer'

The debate within the Democratic party on how to confront Donald Trump

[xydexx]

When the only tool you have is a flamethrower, everything looks like something you can set on fire.

[xydexx]

Elsewhere on Tumblr: People complaining about respectability politics, and in the same post don’t seem to understand why people are willing to debate “dapper” Nazis who seem “reasonable.”

[xydexx]

To put it simply: sometimes someone is being too angry. Sometimes an activist’s rage is doing more harm than good. Sometimes there is no good being done by it whatsoever. Not every emotion we have is a great strike against oppressive forces. Sometimes you are just being too loud, abusing people verbally, triggering them, and so forth. Sometimes you are just being a jerk and your tone is a fairly reliable indicator of this.

Katherine Cross, Words For Cutting: Why We Need To Stop Abusing The Tone Argument

[egalitariste]

Lire la suite - BD par EMMA

[fucknomeanpeople]

Issues I Have With “Tone Argument“

I’m not gonna say that this isn’t ever an important concern, since people can use someone’s tone as an excuse to dismiss their arguments wholesale - or, even worse, dismiss the entirety of a movement. That is an extreme reaction - and, in fact, it’s a type of “ad hominem” fallacy.

However, the problem starts when pro-SJ people (or people who pretend to be such) start using that as an excuse to be as vitriolic or abusive as they please - and that shouldn’t be condoned.

Furthermore, it makes it hard for me to explain to “anti-SJWs” why they *also* shouldn’t be mean - lest they throw “tone argument” back at me, and assume that I condemn *only* “anti-SJWs” being mean... when, in fact, I also don’t like it coming from pro-SJ people. I don’t like it coming from *anyone*.

~ Mod Serafina