|
Tone policing is good. You should be civil, even with people whom you disagree with.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
White Rock posted:Those people won the election. Presumably you have to have some of them switch their vote to a new candidate for your side to win. The entire sticking point, however, is that one group is connecting economic difficulties to issues like opposing immigration, while the other finds the root of the problems to be centuries long policies of social and socio-economic discrimination against otherized groups of people. One implies that a base emotional state must be assuaged through economic policies, while the other rejects an assuaging of perpetrators.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Uh. This comes across as suggesting the second person is unreasonable and stupid. All time travels stories are broken if you look at them too closely. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:They probably are. Ignorant at the very least. But that doesn't mean they should be dismissed. So the question is whether that person can only handle being baby-gloved, and if you believe so, on what basis?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Higsian posted:All time travels stories are broken if you look at them too closely. I use my time-turner to solve irregularities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Tone policing is good. You should be civil, even with people whom you disagree with. This. Tone policing is bad when used to shut down debate. It is not bad when used to shape debate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
stone cold posted:46% of the country didn't vote for Trump, hope this helps. Fine, 46% of the people voting the election, so "only" 60 million people. Do you have any remarks too the rest of the post or are you just a collection of witty comebacks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So the question is whether that person can only handle being baby-gloved, and if you believe so, on what basis? Its not about what that person can "handle" (whatever that means), it's about how 3rd party's view your interactions and how you should talk to people as a matter of principle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Fine, 46% of the people voting the election, so "only" 60 million people. Do you have any remarks too the rest of the post or are you just a collection of witty comebacks? I'm more interested in the 74% of eligible voters who didn't vote for Trump. That wasn't a witty comeback, that was correcting a factual inaccuracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Nah, tone policing is bad and used almost exclusively to shut down poc and women. Don't do that here. Consider it a  WARNINGhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Don't try and shut down perfectly relevant topics of discussion. E: hosed up on the awful app The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Its not about what that person can "handle" (whatever that means), it's about how 3rd party's view your interactions and how you should talk to people as a matter of principle. Ah, you're talking about not necessarily talking to someone but talking so that other people can see how you talk at someone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Like, here's a thought. The framing of this bullshit culture war is SJW's vs deplorables, right? Maybe, when one side is a bunch of racist, white nationalist, bigoted cowards, who want to wipe out the other side, maybe that opinion isn't valid. I think you're being too absolutist here, though to be fair that might be the OP's fault. The culture war sides are fairly big coalitions with all sorts of people in them and a bunch of people in the middle that could go either way or nowhere. I'm not saying everyone on the other side is reachable, I'm saying some are reachable and a whole lot in the middle are definitely reachable, and we owe it to ourselves to try to reach them. Or not, whatever, don't do something you don't think will work. But don't sabotage other people's efforts. Because that's what you're doing when you just straight up attack people for minor things. Like yeah attack someone like Sessions that rear end in a top hat isn't reachable, but someone who puts a foot out of line can potentially be reached. But when you attack the other side, not the other side's arguments or its worst offenders, but the other side itself you just reinforce their coalition and make it harder for other people to talk them out of it. The people you could peel from the other side move closer to the core of hate-filled individuals that has roped them into the coalition and people in the middle will often see you being a bully (and then fall into that both sides are the same bullshit that is so infuriating). Nobody is saying their views are valid. Just that their are approaches to getting some of them out from under those views.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Chelb posted:The entire sticking point, however, is that one group is connecting economic difficulties to issues like opposing immigration, while the other finds the root of the problems to be centuries long policies of social and socio-economic discrimination against otherized groups of people. One implies that a base emotional state must be assuaged through economic policies, while the other rejects an assuaging of perpetrators. I'm having trouble parsing this, what's the connection? Is economic difficulties caused by... what in the case?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Higsian posted:It's the same phenomenon as Americans being all for universal health care so long as you use words that don't trigger their "= socialism = bad" response. Is that something that should be accommodated, or are we losing ourselves trying to treat the symptom to a larger problem in society? And is it truly impossible to use liberal or academic terminology without turning a majority of people hostile? If anything that seems more insulting to people's intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ah, you're talking about not necessarily talking to someone but talking so that other people can see how you talk at someone? Both are important. I have more political conversations with 3+ participants than with only two people. Online discussions are always both about the actual discussion and the way the discussion is likely to be perceived by third parties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I'm having trouble parsing this, what's the connection? Is economic difficulties caused by... what in the case? One says "poor governmental/business decisions have hosed you over" and the other says "Mexicans are stealing your jobs" ...not to say that's how the election's rhetoric played out
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Both are important. I have more political conversations with 3+ participants than with only two people. Online discussions are always both about the actual discussion and the way the discussion is likely to be perceived by third parties. I agree, but your words seemed to suggest an intention not to argue with someone but to make points at them with a wry glance at the camera to say "look at this rear end in a top hat" with no intention of fostering a genuine challenge of ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Don't try and shut down relevant discussion. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I agree, but your words seemed to suggest an intention not to argue with someone but to make points at them with a wry glance at the camera to say "look at this rear end in a top hat" with no intention of fostering a genuine challenge of ideas. You want to actually debate with them and present the best argument. However, people who want to have an argument with you are probably those least likely to actually change their beliefs. That's just the way that human psychology works. The real target for "conversion" in most debates are the people observing. That's why tone can matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Higsian posted:I think you're being too absolutist here, though to be fair that might be the OP's fault. The culture war sides are fairly big coalitions with all sorts of people in them and a bunch of people in the middle that could go either way or nowhere. I'm not saying everyone on the other side is reachable, I'm saying some are reachable and a whole lot in the middle are definitely reachable, and we owe it to ourselves to try to reach them. Or not, whatever, don't do something you don't think will work. But don't sabotage other people's efforts. Because that's what you're doing when you just straight up attack people for minor things. Like yeah attack someone like Sessions that rear end in a top hat isn't reachable, but someone who puts a foot out of line can potentially be reached. But when you attack the other side, not the other side's arguments or its worst offenders, but the other side itself you just reinforce their coalition and make it harder for other people to talk them out of it. The people you could peel from the other side move closer to the core of hate-filled individuals that has roped them into the coalition and people in the middle will often see you being a bully (and then fall into that both sides are the same bullshit that is so infuriating). What people that voted for Trump can you see peeling off? I think it's a better use of our time to grab the people who didn't vote at all than try to pander to bigots and throw minorities under the bus because they'll always vote with us. Also, show me exactly where calling out bigotry undermines other people's efforts, ever. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
stone cold posted:You're comically missing the point. I don't know, seems like I had a better grasp of what rudatron was saying in that post. It's actually a bit funny, since you're basically doing what the 'coastal elite' character was doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I don't know, seems like I had a better grasp of what rudatron was saying in that post. It's actually a bit funny, since you're basically doing what the 'coastal elite' character was doing. Yep, that's me, definitely I totally don't actually care about minorities at all, or the poors. You got me, I'm just using rhetorical tools to keep my stranglehold on the world economy and keep exploiting the 99%!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Also, show me exactly where calling out bigotry undermines other people's efforts, ever. Calling out bigotry is not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Calling out bigotry is not a problem. Then what exactly are you even pointing to as "undermining people's efforts?" Seems like you're the one more interested in activist purity tests than me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:You want to actually debate with them and present the best argument. However, people who want to have an argument with you are probably those least likely to actually change their beliefs. That's just the way that human psychology works. The real target for "conversion" in most debates are the people observing. That's why tone matters. This is absolutely incorrect. take your armchair psychology elsewhere. Believe it or not in misogynoir and negrotown we've changed a lot of minds and done real world good without coddling white feelings. Tone arguments are bullshit and again, used largely to silence minorities. Don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:One says "poor governmental/business decisions have hosed you over" and the other says "Mexicans are stealing your jobs" I would argue that the difference in what's said is that trump is laying economic problems at hands of globalisation and labour competition instead of Hillary's explanation of "what problem?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Yep, that's me, definitely I totally don't actually care about minorities at all, or the poors. You got me, I'm just using rhetorical tools to keep my stranglehold on the world economy and keep exploiting the 99%! Well, we were using a discussion about race and racism to avoid talking about something else. Did rudatron make a normative claim about housework and immigration?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Well, we were using a discussion about race and racism to avoid talking about something else. If the first example that you can think of is "foreigner doing housework," then you are the one with the problem. Don't try to rules lawyer this, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:This is absolutely incorrect. take your armchair psychology elsewhere. It's not armchair philosophy, it's based on solid psychological research. I don't give a spicy poo poo about all the hearts and minds you think DnD threads have swayed. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It's not armchair philosophy, it's based on solid psychological research. I don't give a spicy poo poo about all the hearts and minds you think DnD threads have swayed. Then why are you here, sharing spicy debating techniques like "shut up minorities?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Yeah, tone matters a lot when trying to get observers to join a cause. Look at Milo and his circuit of colleges he went to, and how that activists reacted to his speeches. Strip out everything coherent both sides say, and look at how he acts compared to the screaming, yelling activists. When you see a scene of two people where one person is screaming yelling and swearing, and the other person is talking in an indoir voice, you go against the screaming person mentally because they did not have the self control to respect the norms of a polite conversation. When screaming yelling activists get filmed yelling at someone trying to talk in a normal tone of voice, who is the person in the right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Yeah, tone matters a lot when trying to get observers to join a cause. The person who isn't Milo Yiannopoulos, jesus loving christ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:When screaming yelling activists get filmed yelling at someone trying to talk in a normal tone of voice, who is the person in the right? The person who doesn't want to gas black people and Jews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Problem is tone policing is super loving huge amongst the white middle class. You see it as being something used to shut down POC and women (because it is, but also) because you don't see first hand how it's used within middle class white society all the time. Which is your loss because it deprives you of a very strong weapon that every powerful white person holds over the largest (depending on how you define middle class) demographic in the west.. But I'll drop the argument here. Think about it though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
stone cold posted:If the first example that you can think of is "foreigner doing housework," then you are the one with the problem. Okay, so rudatron didn't say all immigrants only do housework. The scenario in that post is not a literal description of reality - it's a morality play about hypocrisy. The throwaway reference to "foreign hired help" is not saying "immigrant workers can only do domestic labour" any more than the throwaway reference to "white trailer trash dying from opioid poisoning" is saying "only rural white drug addicts are blamed for racism". They're both props for a one-line character assassination of the Democratic Party leadership; the primary character trait is that they are exploited by the commentariat/political class, and this is why the establishment left participates in the culture war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Okay, so rudatron didn't say all immigrants only do housework. Right, but I think his choice of caricatures says more about him than it does about the "establishment left."
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It's not armchair philosophy, it's based on solid psychological research. I don't give a spicy poo poo about all the hearts and minds you think DnD threads have swayed. Those threads have given a lot to me, and I simply read them. Much like how I listen to what people say over how they say it. But then, I'm curious about what they're saying and not preoccupied with protecting my ego and don't presume that others exist to cater to me. I had to learn that through being alive, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Problem is tone policing is super loving huge amongst the white middle class. You see it as being something used to shut down POC and women (because it is, but also) because you don't see first hand how it's used within middle class white society all the time. Which is your loss because it deprives you of a very strong weapon that every powerful white person holds over the largest (depending on how you define middle class) demographic in the west.. But I'll drop the argument here. Think about it though. Weak cowards use anything they can latch onto to avoid hearing what they know will not serve their interests. There's no way to win that rhetorical game because the tone objections pop up in response to what they don't want to hear rather than structuring the way they hear it. Accede to one objection and a different one pops up because tons of white people have been programmed from birth to defend themselves from reality. The problem is that they simply can't listen without risking toppling the house of cards that bears the full weight of white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Would you say you bootstrapped your way into understanding and everybody else just needs to do the same?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2017 04:50
|
|