I don’t know where this quote is from. But even if it’s accurate - and I don’t think it is - what it’s describing is not a logical fallacy but rather a rhetorical device.
In any event, regardless of whether it’s a logical fallacy or rhetorical device or whatever else, it’s generally used by left wingers and directed rightwards. Which is why LHOD’s use of this term fit in with the general tenor of his post, which was that complaints from RW-oriented offendees are something that might be ignored while complaints from comparable LW-oriented offendees should not. Which was my point in noting his use of that term.
I hear you. I got in a conversation recently with my brother about the unpleasant shenanigans at Evergreen (my alma mater). He wasn’t familiar with them, but he told me he wasn’t comfortable with my tone-policing the activism of people of color. I started to explain why I often dislike the term tone-policing, but then Neil DeGrasse Tyson came on stage and we both shut up.
Anger is a necessary and important part of activism; well-behaved women etc. etc. But I also think strategic thinking is crucial, and too many activists decry that.
I don’t think he does. I think he intentionally chooses the motives most favorable to his position. Because he’s not interested in the truth, but just in winning arguments. That’s what I mean by what I’ve said about him. Maybe you call that trolling, maybe not. But it is disingenuous.
Thing is, there is a long history of telling people who are upset “you’re being irrational” as a way to invalidate everything they are saying. I can’t imagine saying that to someone who is upset. It would be like saying “calm down,” which is never helpful.
A huge part of the social justice movement is making sure that minority grievances are actually heard, without someone trying to silence you. It’s similar to how you can’t just call someone “racist,” since those people think you’re just saying that as a way to silence them.
It’s legitimate to discuss tactics, but it doesn’t sound to me like the woman Spice Weasel disagreed with was talking tactically, given the description.
And I don’t like this trend of trying to invalidate the social justice movement because they share their grievances. I think they have a point in saying that people should be able to share their grievances without being invalidated.
I would definitely feel that someone telling me that I’m being “irrational” rather than actually pointing out the flaws in my arguments would be doing something wrong. Maybe not “tone-policing,” but something.
It would be like telling someone in a panic attack that they are being irrational to be anxious. Duh. Doesn’t make the anxiety go away.
That all sounds very nice. But the key problem is that many of the people who are being “told” to calm down are not just wallowing in their own suffering and/or looking for sympathy. They usually at a minimum trying to force other people to modify their behavior or looking to benefit at their expense, and more commonly trying to harm other people via social opprobrium. So if they’re being irrational, or even just being obnoxious, it’s completely valid to point this out.
Treating it like a joke doesn’t do your argument any good. If you’re joking around, you aren’t actually outraged.
Though there is an actual argument for what you put forth. The right wing largely decries caring about people’s feelings and political correctness. You don’t get to deliberately cause outrage on one side, and then whine because people don’t care about your outrage.
It’s reciprocity. It’s a very basic thing.
Not that I expect you to care, because, as I keep noting, this is all just a game for you. You’ve admitted such. Hell, this little stunt is proving it again. You don’t take any of this seriously.
And, in fact, that is the only reason I’m responding. I know you won’t change, but I can at least point out what you’re doing to others. When you keep on admitting it, I can keep on pointing it out.
And I’m hoping Dopers are smarter than Trump voters, who let Trump openly do what he did.
Well I certainly don’t take you seriously. So if you define “any of this” as “BigT”, then your final sentence is correct.
If, with the pompous and self-important attitude that’s displayed in your many posts, you genuinely think it’s “all about you”, then perhaps that’s indeed how you look at things. Which would make you correct in your own mind.
Knock yourself out. At least it’s something to do.
Right, so at what point do we get to stop prancing nimbly over other people’s feelings in order to move the conversation toward something of substance?
In this specific example, it was a blog post about how All the Horrible Mens had hurt this woman and therefore she didn’t trust any men. The basic message was, ‘‘I hate all men, I’m justified in hating all men, fuck you.’’ Not something told in confidence, something plastered out there for public consumption (and eagerly anticipating accolades, I’m sure.)
This pissed me off. Even leaving aside how insulting it is to men, I think it’s an irresponsible social message to put out there and will only hurt the cause of feminism. I responded to the man who had posted it (not the author), that it was ‘‘weak-minded, irrational bullshit.’’
Enter stage left one of his bitch friends to lecture me about how I can’t fathom her pain and have no right to judge blah blah blah. Oh, don’t I? When I mentioned the four fucking deadbeat alcoholic rapist sexually abusive fucks I grew up with, and how I’ve miraculously managed not to hate all men since I understand the difference between four and four billion, White Knight changed his tune pretty damned fast, I’m pretty sure his head exploded from the cognitive dissonance of a Lady Victim disagreeing with another Lady Victim. From that point he engaged in a social media campaign to change my mind, and help me see the light, that in fact I should hate all men, or in the very least accept that people are justified in doing so.
That was the end of social media and my respect for any ideology where ‘‘tone-policing’’ is considered a valid argument.
Should I have minced words to protect her feelings? She obviously didn’t give a shit about protecting mine. Because some SJWs have fallen so far down the rabbit hole they will spill the blood of their own before they will engage in even a second of critical thinking. It’s not just irritating, do you understand me? It’s enraging. It’s socially damaging. I have dedicated large portions of my life to this issue, both in nonprofit work and my art, and it obliterates the progress I work so hard every day to achieve. It’s the difference between legit activism and anarchist bullshit. Don’t pretend this is a non-issue, don’t tone-police me, because it was just as much a ‘‘silencing’’ of my voice as anything right-wingers do. It was a smack-in-your face, ‘‘Your experiences are less valid than mine’’ load of self-righteous horseshit from one feminist to another.
My refusal to give into hate is at the very core of my ability to survive what I did, and it’s good for society on top of that, so yes, fuck it, I actually believe my way of coping with trauma is superior to hers. I actually think there are objectively superior methods of dealing with bad experiences. I do not support Magneto’s attempt to dump all non-mutants into smoldering furnaces (yes, that happened in the comics.) The minute she starts damaging society with hateful attitudes is the minute she no longer gets a Lady Victim pass and I will take her to fucking task for it. You’re goddamn right I will. I am Charles Motherfucking Xavier and we are the X-Men.
Looks like this got bumped accidentally. Since there’s another active thread on exactly this topic, I’m closing this one to prevent confusion and keep discussion on the more recent thread.
