fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2188 ]

I love how language policing has become the be-all and end-all of activism.

And there are some SJWs who don't believe in even telling people what they've done that's so awful. "It's not our job to educate you!" is their battle cry. But if you've no clue what you've done wrong in the first place, that's not really helpful.

For some people, it's all about being right and the appearance of always saying/doing the "right" thing, rather than actually doing anything that will help the cause. Alienating people who mean well but made a mistake probably isn't helpful in the long run.

Oh wait, I just used the "tone argument", didn't I? There's no way to "win" when they're always right.

THis is EXACTLY why I hate the Tone Argument.

It's like, "I get to call you every name in the book, pile abuse on your head, and if you object in any way it's OMG TONE ARGUMENT!".

EXACTLY. I think the original intent of the concept was good, but it's complete bullshit now.

For certain people, it's just an excuse to bully and abuse others under the guise of doing something awesome for society. Ugh.

(no subject)

stainless - 2012-12-30 00:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kittenmommy - 2012-12-30 00:03 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

stainless - 2012-12-30 00:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kittenmommy - 2012-12-30 00:32 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

darth_eldritch - 2012-12-30 01:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kittenmommy - 2012-12-30 23:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-30 00:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

stainless - 2012-12-30 00:54 (UTC) - Expand

"Tone argument" used to have a meaningful definition, before it was repurposed to mean "don't criticize our methods, ever." Sometimes, detractors would enter activist spaces and try to stop the activity taking place (particularly when it was being effective) by saying "wait, wait, you're doing it wrong!" That absolutely did not mean that confronting people when they were being ineffective or counterproductive was taboo. If our goal is getting stuff done, there's nothing heretical about trying to assess if what we're doing is effective. Some of the more visible straw-activists of every stripe have been agent-saboteurs, posing as radicals to discredit the movement. It worries me that I wouldn't even know how to begin to tell those apart from the SJW faction online.

You know, it never even occurred to me that some of them might be trolls/saboteurs. It makes sense, I have to admit.

It's been in the back of my mind ever since I read articles about the US government giving a number of internet Psyops the go-ahead.

Well, if it's trolls who are trying to make marginalized people and their actual allies look like humorless, abusive, bullying assholes, they're doing a spectacular job of it!

It's terrifyingly non-impossible.

Seeing as we're still talking here, I just chased up a few recent articles from memory, as examples of how this shit has played out in IRL activist groups that have fallen under scrutiny from government:

The Long Con: Anatomy of a Two-Year Undercover Sting and What It Has to Do with Law Enforcement’s Habit of Wasting Large Amounts of Money on Investigating People for Their Social Habits and Political Beliefs (this site carries small NSFW personal ads in the sidebars)

Undercover police officer unlawfully spied on climate activists, judges rule: Mark Kennedy was arguably an agent provocateur, says appeal verdict quashing Ratcliffe-on-Soar conspiracy convictions (From the UK: I've read better story articles about this same case, but tl;dr an undercover cop switched sides, got overinvolved in the environmental activism he was meant to be investigating, got a bunch of people arrested, and they got their convictions quashed).

Reclaim The Cyber Commons (About mass astroturfing organised by, variously, the Tea Party and the Chinese government.)

ETA, I opened this in a tab and then forgot to link it: How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing 'Terrorists' - and Letting Bad Guys Off the Hook

...So, yeah. I can't rule it out although I feel like it's an unlikely angle of interference. I mean. It's tumblr and everyone's 14 and trying to tell each other which words not to use and what to be mad about.

Edited 2012-12-31 05:44 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, will read.

Re unlikely: Except for the fact that a few years back, the US gov had an unhealthy fascination with twitter, and how it might be good for inciting revolutions. They might be selecting platforms that don't require as much relationship-forming and in-depth conversation, so as to broadcast more of a signal.

You might be giving them too much credit.

As an admitted troll, I wouldn't say I've set out to fuck with a movement. Or necessarily others.

I mean, sure, if you see a bugfuck crazy group on the internet it'd be fun to fuck with, that's part of your motivation, but the primary purpose of doing it isn't an ideological clash to maintain the white patriarchy.

Usually it's because it's funny to set them off. Classic elementary school entertainment in the digital age of manchildren.

I might. But some of the SJW tactics I've seen don't look like straight-up trolling to me at all. They look like rat-fucking, which is an old Republican party term for posing as the opposition and then doing things that attract negative attention from the public at large.

It first occurred to me that some of the SJWs sounded like conservatives in disguise when I heard about their reviling interracial marriage. Then other things, like the fact that they're ... unwilling? unable? to actually say what their side stands for or why they're speaking out against [whatever] made more sense. Saboteurs don't want to give anyone who doesn't know about the ideology of the group they're infiltrating reasons to agree with it. They want it to stay off-putting and foreign.

The other thing that really struck me was how much the SJW tone had in common with the way right wing pundits argue and harangue. The left has a tradition of I'm educated being a badge of honor. You establish your credentials in the group by speaking eloquently, not by making emotional appeals. And there's sort of a ... "first person to be reduced to insults and rage loses" rule. This is not the case in activist safe spaces, where venting is allowed, but it is very much the case in terms of how they present themselves to the world at large. Liberals, even radical liberals, believe in educating and convincing people that the world should change in X, Y, and Z ways.

TL;DR Bullying, threatening, and mobbing are all antithetical to improving the way the majority feels about any mistreated minority. A person who actually wants to help the cause they're acting as a spokesperson for should know this. So I'm not sure what they SJWs game is, but when I can't tell the difference between [whatever they are] and intentional sabotage, there's something very wrong.

So I'm not sure what they SJWs game is, but when I can't tell the difference between [whatever they are] and intentional sabotage, there's something very wrong.

YES.

What the fuck? Why the hell would they be against interracial marriage?

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-12-31 07:07 (UTC) - Expand

Probably because they can't educate for shit.

It's certainly a trend in a lot of the more strident activist communities, in that they can't actually hold a drawn out structured coherent argument, without getting rings run round them.

Now a number of the complaints they make are missappropriated but valid ones. The tone argument for example, did at one point have an actual meaning and reference to a certain approach used to shut down conversation. Or the constant influx of people asking literally the most basic questions in activist spaces involved in high level discourse. Mansplaining underwent a similar trajectory.

However, almost exclusively now they're used as a response for an inability to actually defend what you're saying, which seems to be some sort of bizarre overton window ala Singapore, in which any question of the ideas or boundaries is disallowed to keep the veneer of validity, because it's about two seconds from collapsing in on itself for having absolutely no real grounding.

Probably because they can't educate for shit.

I also think that part of it is that they may not even know why doing or saying 'X' is a horrible, horrible thing and makes you the vilest of human beings ever for saying or doing it. They're just parroting what they've been told by their SJW-overlords.

See, words like "SJW overlords" make what you're saying sound unlikely. It's true that a disturbing number of young people are being taught to treat activism as something you receive the theory of from eminent authorities on the subject, and then defend to the world at large. When it should be something that you run through your own mind and either thoroughly understand why this makes sense, or challenge because it doesn't.

If they really can't argue, as opposed to "are convinced they shouldn't have to," they need to learn. If they won't, the community needs to make it abundantly clear that these people aren't activists in any sense we recognize and don't speak for us.

And a lot of (if not most of) the people pulling this crap aren't even marginalized people. No, they're so-called "allies".

I'm not a marginalized person, but I think that with allies like those... etc..

I'm not a marginalized person, but I think that with allies like those... etc..

Oops, I actually do qualify as a marginalized person. I have Cerebral Palsy, but I didn't find out about that until 2010 (and I'm probably older than a lot of the parents of the folks who post here, so... yeah). I can "pass" as "normal", so even though I am technically a marginalized person, I've never felt that particular stigma.

That would be extra-special weird, because a lot of SJW stuff blasts allies.

Totally agree with this. It's less about doing the right thing and more about LOOKING like you're doing the right thing, in a place where other people can see you doing the right thing so that you can all pat each other, and yourselves, on the back for being good people, and vanquishing the evils of mildly offensive things said out of ignorance on the Internet.

The whole "it's not my job to educate you!" mantra pisses me off to no end. Why did you bother screaming at someone that they're doing something wrong if you were going to go on to refuse to tell them WHAT they're doing wrong, or why it's wrong? If you have time to type out two paragraphs of insults, then you have time to include a sentence that explains why what they said is problematic. And, I mean, call me crazy, but isn't it kind of your job to defend your own argument? I DUNNO, MAYBE I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Totally agree with this. It's less about doing the right thing and more about LOOKING like you're doing the right thing, in a place where other people can see you doing the right thing so that you can all pat each other, and yourselves, on the back for being good people, and vanquishing the evils of mildly offensive things said out of ignorance on the Internet.

Pretty much. Plus, it's an excuse to bully others... some people really get off on that.

I saw a fanfic that included "spaz" in the summary to describe a character's behavior. I wrote a review saying that as someone with Cerebral Palsy, I'd appreciate it if the author would find a better word than "spaz" to use in there. She very politely agreed with me, and changed the summary.

I was waiting for the SJWs to show up and dogpile her, but they didn't... possibly because she changed it before any of them saw it. I was actually kind of hoping they'd show up, so I could tell them, "Hey, thanks, but an actual disabled person already handled it!".

I get how the Tone Argument can be used to derail and that no one is required to be nice to anyone, let alone someone who's being abusive, but at the same time, you often catch more flies with honey than vinegar. It costs me absolutely nothing to be kind and polite in my initial interaction with someone; I can always haul out the scathing insults later if need be, you know?

The whole "it's not my job to educate you!" mantra pisses me off to no end. Why did you bother screaming at someone that they're doing something wrong if you were going to go on to refuse to tell them WHAT they're doing wrong, or why it's wrong?

It's like, "I'm mad at you, and if you don't know why, I'm not going to tell you!". It's a shitty, passive-aggressive thing when it's done in a relationship, and it's no less shitty or passive-aggressive when done online.

If you have time to type out two paragraphs of insults, then you have time to include a sentence that explains why what they said is problematic. And, I mean, call me crazy, but isn't it kind of your job to defend your own argument? I DUNNO, MAYBE I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Apparently I don't either. I'm sort of waiting to be told I'm Doing It Wrong because of the way I choose to deal with people who use problematic language that could be applied to me. Obviously, I need an abusive, vitriolic SJW to white knight on my behalf. Because surely that'll make people care more about people with disabilities!

Or something, IDEK.

Sorry for writing you a book; I evidently have a lot of feelings about this.

"I'm sort of waiting to be told I'm Doing It Wrong because of the way I choose to deal with people who use problematic language that could be applied to me. Obviously, I need an abusive, vitriolic SJW to white knight on my behalf. Because surely that'll make people care more about people with disabilities!"

Sadly, I can completely relate to that example. I once used the word "crazy" in reference to myself (on F!S, actually; it was a secret about mental illnesses); I don't remember my exact comment, but some uppity SJW rode in on their white horse and tried to tell me how, if I really had a real mental illness, then I should be offended by the word "crazy", and if I did, then clearly I'm a self-hating bigot who has internalized my ableism. Thank you, all-knowing SJW commenter, for correcting me. I definitely need you to tell me how I SHOULD be referring to myself in order to be a ~real~ victim.

tl;dr @ self, also, can someone explain the concept of a tone argument to me? I've seen people reference it many times, but I don't quite fully understand what it means.

(no subject)

kittenmommy - 2012-12-31 03:49 (UTC) - Expand