So why exactly is "tone" or "approach" more important than actual issues that affect us all?

[nomorenomore08]

And why is any individual's fragile ego - or their "feelings" - more important than the mistreatment and abuse to which human beings are subjected every day in this world?

And if you're whining about being broad-brushed or stereotyped, then why don't you try and actually DO something about the problem? Insisting you're a good person doesn't carry much weight when you constantly give the bad people a free pass.

[Scootaloo]

1. It's not. It's just a deflective tactic to avoid addressing the issue

"I don't like the way you said that!" is a way of weaseling out of something, as opposed to "I don't agree with what you said," which carries an expectation that there will be a reason why.

[nomorenomore08]

2. And if they don't have a logical, valid reason for their opposition, then there you go...

[Voice for Peace]

151. An insulting, disrespectful tone will derail effective communication.

If communication here in these threads is not effective, we
are not informing each other, we are not learning from one
another, we are not inspiring, collaborating, organizing or
encouraging.

The key is effectiveness. If you (or anybody) talks to me
as if I am an idiot, I am less likely to listen or read your
point of view.

I think we each have a responsibility to make our own
communications as clear and nonviolent as possible,
remembering always that every human on the planet
needs kindness, especially the mean ones.

[Vattel]

309. wow, your comment says it all.

[Demo_Chris]

3. /thread. nt

[BainsBane]

7. Precisely!

[Shandris]

4. Yeahhhhhh, no. Tone -is- important. It's not -more- important (duh), but it is/can be...

...very important. This is yet another example of mockery being made of people who are supposed to be your allies. "Why is an individual's fragile ego so important?" Gee, I dunno...but I presume it is, since we use the word 'offended' to talk about our 'fragile egos' all the time. Entire movements are based on what 'offends' people and we think THAT is fine.

"If you're being stereotyped, do something about it!" If I -really- need to point out all the ways this is problematic, you might be posting on the wrong site.

Sometimes I wonder if my memories of the past here aren't a bit more nostalgic than I like to remember, but goddamn if I remember everyone being this vicious to one another.

[seabeyond]

11. the problem with tone is often, too often it is an assumption and wrong.

a person can be speaking in a normal tone and the receiver hears something totally different. then accuses tone... leaving the speaker to ask, exactly how they are suppose to say something

often times tone is an excuse and doesnt matter how much the poster twists themselves to present an acceptable tone, it is never good enough

maybe we ought to just stick with the words written. that at least gives us a more accurate picture on what is actually being said.

[kcr]

14. Yes.

This is what is meant by tone in the context of the OP. Exactly.

[Shandris]

39. I can't speak as to how often tone is used as an excuse; I can only safely speak for...

...myself, and I am more than happy to admit that I hold myself (or try my best) to rules that I don't necessarily expect from other people. But that said, when I speak of tone, its never being used as an excuse and I would strongly denounce anyone that uses it as such. That's a tactic not worthy of our side of the aisle imo.

I agree, to some extent, that perhaps the words written alone would be better to stick to. But I don't think, in practice, that human nature will allow such a thing. Redqueen spoke of passion in a post earlier today, and I would think that those who -are- passionate about any topic are sure to have it noticed in their posts; its a quality that speaks for itself in most cases.

I guess its easier to say that I'm ambivalent about 'words only'. I know I for one would have a very difficult time with it; I have always write, and read, in a conversational tone. Our experiences do tend to color how we read things though (which is one reason I try to present my posts as clearly as possible, at the cost of often being overly wordy), and conversational to one is argumentative to another. An interesting conundrum, but one that we owe it to ourselves to look at further for the future. The topic of 'tone', and how it is perceived, is invariably what comes to my mind every time we see a thread asking why conservatives/midwesterners/southerners/etc don't see how the Republicans are treating them: in the place I live, you will find that the answer often comes down to how the tone (of many various topics) is perceived. Not always, of course...but often enough to swing an election. Indiana -has- gone blue in the not-so-distant past, after all. And that thought -- future elections and policy -- tend to guide my response to things that might, on the surface, seem unrelated.

Whew! Sorry so long!

[stevenleser]

48. I think those currently pushing the "tone shouldn't matter" meme are...

... trying to get permission to be as nasty to anyone they want whenever they want just because they X, where X means they advocate for a particular progressive issue or viewpoint.

In most cases, there are a fair amount of DUers telling them they are being too nasty but they refuse to acknowledge it because they think the issue they are fronting trumps the rules for them.

[kcr]

50. But yet I note that you don't want to answer the question

how "obnoxious" are Dues allowed to be when faced with particular viewpoints presented?

[stevenleser]

52. I did answer. I said, it's one thing to be obnoxious to a particular instance of bigotry

It is another to be generally obnoxious.

[kcr]

53. But that really didn't answer the question

Are you implying that everyone making the tone argument is just generally obnoxious? So just how careful should anyone be when they argue against those examples I made? To be careful not to seem obnoxious? Is that what leads to the gender wars?

[stevenleser]

54. Well, if you are making it into an SAT question, I cant say for sure EVERYONE who is

making the tone argument is just generally obnoxious in their behavior. But most seem to be. And most seem to be making that argument specifically in the effort to try to allow for themselves the right to behave any way they want to from now on without consequences here.

[kcr]

56. I'm not trying to make it into an SAT question.

I'm trying to show how problematic the argument against the tone argument is. It's especially problematic on DU3. The reason is those examples I gave? On the more heavily moderated DU with rules, they would have been quickly deleted. Civility is all well and good when there are rules in place that are heavily enforced. We don't have that anymore. It's ridiculous on DU3 with its loosey goosey jury system and "community standards' that are honestly laughable and anything but, to claim that anyone, regardless of the topic, should be expected to maintain absolute civility at all times, and they're just an obnoxious git if they don't. And it does seem that some are held to a higher standard than others.

[Squinch]

91. Calling those who disagree with you "obnoxious" is not smart. It just alienates your allies.

You'll never win your argument by doing that.

Also, labeling them that way is just an effort to behave the way you want without consequences here.

[seabeyond]

155. i am hearing a bit of snark in your title. tone steven.

[polly7]

159. BINGO! nt.

[Katashi_itto]

78. Well said!

It's all just an excuse to be as obnoxious as they want in pursuit of a higher "mission"

[seabeyond]

156. so, with no knowledge you have defined others for them?

[Katashi_itto]

161. See #48

[seabeyond]

164. what does 48 have to do with anything. a man that is angry at us, pointing the finger at us, again

defining and insulting us is no different from your position. when there are two posters patting each other on the back, defining the people they really dislike, that means nothing. nothing. there is nothing neutral in that post of stevens. his "tone" was fine. and his words were all about dissing a group of people. he wont get a hide. cause his tone is good. it is insulting and a diss and unfair characterization.

that is a perfect example how the whole tone issue fails

the man is angry with us and has been for two years. he throws a jab

ok. so what?

[Katashi_itto]

174. See #48

[seabeyond]

177. brilliant. ignore what is actually posted to you with repeat. what does that do?

is my tone not nice?

how about your passive aggressive posting style telling me repeatedly to go to 48. regardless of the fact of addressing post 48 yet you ignore what i say, only to direct me to 48.

and my tone would be the problem?

[Katashi_itto]

179. See #48

[bettyellen]

113. I think if you start paying attention to how frequent

This tone thing comes up, and really look at the posts that were supposedly offensive, you'd change your mind.

I see it used as a dodge not to respond all the time when someone has just had their arguments politely dismantled here. That happens very frequently. Here and out in the world. I see it all the time applied to posts that merely list counter arguments dispassionately.

Also frequently the person complaining about tone seems confused when a person posts about behavior they see as problematic- their ego hears a personal attack.

[seabeyond]

154. you owuld think wrong. it would be those accused of being angry when they are not. it would being

told they are offended when they are not. it would be those told they are being hysterical when they are not.

it is women that are damn tired of posting and then what was posted reduced to an emotion to dismiss what was written. an assigned emotion that has no relevance at all.

this post would be an example. you are all about defining other people. who are you to define another. people have written exactly what we think and feel. you feel the need to walk right in, and redefine the person for them. THAT.... would be wrong.

[NaturalHigh]

180. +1

Their opinion is more important and shouldn't be contradicted or even debated. Asking a simple question will get one flamed. Don't ever post anything on DU that they don't like or that might offend them or anyone they might like. Consider their omniscient points of view before ever making a reply.

Their goal is to try to shame and silence. It's been going on for a long time, but it's gotten worse recently.

[seabeyond]

185. your whole post is directed at insulting 'they". that is acceptable though your "tone" is fine?

people have more problem with tone than a post from start to finish, defining someone else, fabricating their position and insulting them?

yes.... confrontational. i am confronting you on a post that is nothing but insults of others.

[NaturalHigh]

189. "They" are the "ones pushing the tone doesn't matter meme".

Maybe you should read the post to which I responded. I stand by every word that I typed in my response. You will notice that I named nobody specifically, and I didn't fabricate anything.

I hope you're feeling better, BTW. Bronchitis sucks.

[kcr]

192. But the argument isn't tone doesn't matter

No one is pushing that. The argument is tone is being used to derail arguments. The angry feminist trope. Rush Limbaugh really played this to effect. He coined the term feminazi because of it.

[seabeyond]

195. the point is your whole post is insults toward a group. you define the group. tone pleasant,

btu still nothing but insults. i can have a much more blunt and straight talking post, kinda like this one, and it is all about my tone. though what i say is direct specifically to what you say, and is an honest opinion. i am the bad guy for tone. calling it out like i see it.

whereas your posts is all insults. my post is calling out the insults.

i get in trouble. you do not

i think that is wrong

AND

you are right. this bronchitis thing sucks. and hurts. and does not go away quickly.

[NaturalHigh]

198. Well, I can't see any way you would get in trouble over that post.

I've never alerted on one of your posts, BTW. As for your hides - well, that's why we have juries. I've had a few hidden as well in the past that I thought weren't fair.

If the congestion is in your head too, PM me. I'll send you a guaranteed cure. It doesn't do a lot for chest congestion, though.

[seabeyond]

200. all in the lungs... thank you. nt

[HappyMe]

193. This is true.

If A makes a post with a nasty tone in it, it shouldn't be a problem for A then when B gives an answer with 'tone' in it.

That sort of thing accomplishes nothing of course. It sometimes becomes impossible for the Bs to simply nod in agreement, and hold their bowls out and ask for more. Eventually a B will fling the bowl down when enough is enough, and simply ignore anything A has to say about an issue. Nobody learns anything, and A's credibility is gone and the audience is smaller.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. how did Tone swing Indiana ... ? Am I missing something? Is that the unrelated thing of which you

were speaking?

[Shandris]

72. Not that tone swung Indiana...

...but that when I hear the people around me (as a native Hoosier), the phrases most likely to come from their mouth include some variant of feeling 'talked down to', 'disregarded', and some variant of 'X Coast liberals who don't understand the way it is in the Midwest'. Of those 3, 2 of those are directly attributable to how tone is received/interpreted. That leads to an interpretation that the tone of many arguments can and is important in how people vote.

I'm not looking at it strictly as a 'tone on DU' thing, but a 'tone in how we present ourselves' thing. I hope that clears up what I meant.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

157. yes, very much so. I understand. Thank you

[seabeyond]

163. all i know is more than not, i am being givin an emotion that i am not feeling and i feel is no

where in my posts. that leaves me to believe it is a game. people wanting to assign i am angry, offended, hysterical. hysterical can be a favorite directed to a woman. when we see this, we do not take it seriously. mostly, i approach a subject in earnst, at the start. whether someone perceives it correctly or not is not my doing. it is how i approach, it is what i give. it is for another to digest. i have no control over how another will perceive.

but i have had posts where i assure, compliment, thank the poster and ask questions for clarification. then i am accused with tone.

i ask... how would you like me to say it, what can i say for you to be comfortable with my posts....

do you not think that puts too much of the ownership on the poster, trying to figure out exactly how they are allowed to communicate to not ruffle the poster?

what is the tone that you get from this post?

[Shandris]

173. Well, when I read your post I get a conversational tone.

I certainly don't see anything untoward in it (we had our miscommunication-that-ended-well yesterday! ) or anything that sets off my 'tone alarm' (for lack of a better word, I suppose). I'm not implying that tone is something that is a massive problem, or is something that is a constant assault. Rather, I see it in the context of other facets of our communication and our -effectiveness- in presenting our ideology.

I do think that it can be used as a weapon, and I've said as much; I can't say how often that happens, I can only listen to people who have experienced it like yourself and evaluate your concerns about it. However, one thing I -can- do is make certain that it is noted that, no matter -how- common a 'tactic' is used, every occurrence of something similar to that tactic is not -necessarily- being done for the same reason. It's so incredibly easy for us as people to fall into a state where we assume everything about a person's intentions from the slightest little thing (myself included, of course) that it can be very useful to remember that not everyone is like that. It's the same reason we say things like 'dont generalize' or 'stereotyping carries with it a lot of unintended baggage'. And in the end, that's the reason I think that taking a note about how we are perceived by others -- even though it -is- difficult for us to police constantly -- is something we should -try- to make note of.

I am often rightfully accused of looking too far into the 'big picture' at times and scrimping a bit on the details; I have my detail-oriented moments of course, but when discussing things of a political nature my long-term vision tends to take over. Please don't read that as my approving of, or defending of, people who are using tone as a weapon. It isn't my intent, and it certainly isn't my goal. However, I do think that it's fair to ask people to take a moment to doublecheck and make certain that that is what is happening before dismissing a person out of hand, particularly if you haven't engaged with them often. The outcome can be quite different than what one expects if they just take that moment to make sure -- as we both can attest to from yesterday, I'd think.

[seabeyond]

181. i prefer people to ask. allowing one an opportunity to clarify. i am not much into assumptions at

all. the few times i do it, i am inevitably wrong and remind self.... self, no assumptions. ask. i like people asking. i ask. it keeps things clean.

i can generally agree with what you are posting. we have been discussing and arguing with the same people for the last two years. we know each other. we know the digs, subtle or not. we know what will be allowed or not. a lot of this is not a mystery.

maybe it was you, i do not remember, but yes. yesterday there was a conversation that even with a misstep came clarity.

that was fun, because we both sat back and listened to one another.

i think that is much more vital than the whole tone thing. because tone is an assumption. where as sitting back listening allows openness and an ability to connect. it was refreshing at the end of conversation to say, thank you. whether in agreement or not, it doesnt matter. the more fun, was having a conversation with two people listening to each other respectfully.

that is my aim. i use different means at reaching this with different people. sometimes i feel a bluntness is needed to open doors. but i do like trying different methods to get to that open conversation. staying fluid in conversation.

and see, you were fun in this conversation. allowed me to explore conversation and communication

that is the plus for me.

[Shandris]

187. Well said. I think we're actually pretty close in this regard, but my verbiage still...

...tends to get me into trouble. What you said here: "i think that is much more vital than the whole tone thing. because tone is an assumption. where as sitting back listening allows openness and an ability to connect." is the essence of what I am advocating for and very well put. The ability to listen to one another, to make sure we know where the other is coming from and if necessary, to ask for clarity. That is the 'tone' I'm referring to -- one of respectful people in a conversation, agree or no.

"maybe it was you, i do not remember, but yes." I'm wounded! I'm so forgettable. *sigh*

[seabeyond]

191. no. it is not. something happened to my brain along the way.

i went thru a spiritual journey and i hold very little of the past. i sit mainly in the now. people will say we battle in the past. i do not remember. i do not hold that to people. it has to be forever, continual and something that really sticks into my brain for me to remember animosity. in my mind, there is always an opportunity. and without the past, it leaves choices much more pure.

i am saying, it is much more complimentary for me not to remember you if i crossed swords cause i did not see it as a big enough deal to remember. all was ok. it takes a lot for me to remember.

what i may disagree with a person in the past, i may agree today. i do not want baggage to interfere with that.

also, i post tons. often not even processing the name.

i am old

give me a break, lol

thanks shandris.....

[Shandris]

196. Sounds like a very enlightening journey. My deepest admiration.

I -suppose- you get a break this time. I'm not 'old' yet, but...I'm starting to know how it feels slowly but surely. Not slow enough, of course! Knew I was in trouble the first time I needed a sugar cream pie and stopped to ponder whether I should just go -buy- one instead of baking it the old-fashioned way. That's a baaaaaad sign.

Ahem. I think we've pretty much reached accord here, and WOW am I sleepy. I really should take a nap. Doubt I will, but it seems a good way to end a fun subthread.

Cheers, Seabeyond!

[seabeyond]

201. you are fun. nt

[nomorenomore08]

69. Exactly who am I "mocking"? And I don't particularly need "allies" seeing as I'm a man.

"If you're being stereotyped, do something about it"? Is this a cry of "misandry"? Do you believe in "reverse racism" as well?

[Shandris]

75. On second thought, I'll merely shake my head at both your implied...

...insinuations and your abject lack of understanding about what it is I'm talking about.

[Squinch]

82. Hmmmm. You know, I think you would have better luck making your point if you were nicer.

You are just being mean to your allies, here.

[Shandris]

140. I guess I should have replied to this one first.

The poster needs no allies, as was so clearly pointed out.

I'm sorry you don't like my response. Feel free to discuss something instead of sniping for points.

[Squinch]

263. I am happy with my contribution to the discussion, but thanks for the suggestion.

[Squinch]

79. So, I take it you don't like the tone of the OP's question. And yet your post is quite snarky.

So it is worth noting that "tone" comes from all sides.

[Shandris]

139. You are entirely correct.

And it is also true my post was a tad on the snarky side. Being dismissed so out of hand tends to do that to me.

[Squinch]

142. I think being dismissed tends to do that to everyone.

[nomorenomore08]

268. But why take it so personally to begin with? I didn't single anybody out.

Hell, I didn't even use the words "men" or "women" in the OP. I could've just as easily been talking about racism, homophobia, you name it...

[Shandris]

279. Mainly because it seemed to me to be highly antagonistic...

...particularly in light of recent threads that had already flamed their way across GD. And it is very true you could have been talking about any of those things, but that wouldn't change my response to it (although in hindsight, I do agree with Squinch that I was perhaps a bit over-zealous in my response to you, and for that I do apologize). I often take stances in topics where I have no direct cause or 'need' to (and yes, it gets me into all -sorts- of trouble lol). It mystifies me that everyone doesn't do that, but deeper examination seems to indicate that it's something to do with my personality type. Or so one of those online Briggs-Meyers tests seems to say, at least.

Without going overly into my background (primarily because I don't want to bore everyone to tears), I tend to have a strong 'fairness' streak, and I've seen people summarily dismissed/overlooked/talked down to/etc far too often for my tastes. Any time I see a thread that seems to lean towards the 'if person does X, it always means Y' method of thought, I have an almost natural inclination to respond. I don't think categorical statements that deal with a person's intentions are that helpful in such a broad sense. When narrowed or qualified, most of my contention vanishes. Unfortunately, it does have a tendency to make it look like I'm saying one thing when what I'm actually contesting is the case in such a broad term.

I hope that helps? I've never been real good at keeping explanations short in a non-verbal environment, so I hope it didn't ramble too much.

[nomorenomore08]

281. Okay, I was a little overzealous myself. Mainly because I was fed up with what I saw as

disingenuousness, e.g. people saying (or implying) "I'd be on your side if you'd just be nicer!" And from my perspective, being "nice" about the ugliness of the world we live in serves no one, except those who flat-out deny the problem.

Also, not talking about you personally, but I get tired of people who have relative advantages in life whining about being slighted...

[Shandris]

288. Yeah, I can see that. Like I noted in one of my other posts, I was...

...referring more to 'tone' in a broad, conversational sense, not a specific answer to posts on DU-type sense. I don't think, even in a large-view term, that we need to be nice about the ugliness of the world; like I said to Seabeyond, I was referring to a state of conversation, where people are openly communicating respectfully. You can describe the ugliness of the world, or even the ugliness of people, and still be in that state, and in a broad-view sense I fear its an area we sometimes lack in (myself included) that hurts us. That's what I meant by 'allies' -- people that we are trying to make see our way, ideologically speaking. The non-Democrats, the undecided, the uninformed, even the repentant conservative.

But as regards the frustrations with the advantaged, I can sympathize. Oh, lord, can I sympathize.

[nomorenomore08]

289. Okay, then I think we're more on the same page than we thought.

I know the OP was kind of antagonistic - it was kind of meant to be, honestly - but I realize that most people here are more or less on the same side.

[Shandris]

291. Seems fair to me. All's well that ends well...

...and a little practice in communication for us to boot. Not bad for one Sunday afternoon. Sure beats watching the TV!

[nomorenomore08]

292. I've actually been watching the Niners-Cardinals game, sort of ducking in and out.

I also have music on, and several other Firefox tabs open, so you could say I'm multi-tasking.

[NoOneMan]

5. Trash thread

Straw man argument.

[BainsBane]

8. Hardly

You yourself made this point just today, and for the very reasons Scootaloo suggests upthread.

[pacalo]

71. Awesomely *classy*!

[gollygee]

100. It looks like you misread her response

You need to read the part before the colon as well. She isn't telling him to keep his mouth shut. She says he really means that people should keep their mouths shut.

"You go round and round but you refuse to say what you really mean: keep your mouth shut about feminist issues because it pisses me off."

I assume you just misread it and you aren't misrepresenting her on purpose. It seems pretty clear to me what is being said here.

[pintobean]

107. Yes, she often

tells people what they think and what they really mean - in a classy way, of course.

[gollygee]

108. Well

she wasn't telling him to shut his mouth, which is what was suggested. She said the message he's putting out is that he wants us to shut our mouths. And I get that message from a lot of people. It's like any feminist issue here elicits some kind of allergic response. You can't talk about feminism without people getting a rash.

[Waiting For Everyman]

124. I see what you mean, and believe you're right.

(The colon I see now is very faint on my screen, I had to take out a magnifier to see it.)

That being the case, I apologize to BainsBane. I'm only surprised that she didn't tell me at the time, nor when she made a comment just seven lines above, long after this post here. Just surprised, not putting it on her by any means, it's my fault. Will delete both post and link.

Again, I apologize. And thank you, gollygee for catching my mistake.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. my two cents:

first I have a question:

Have you ever heard the saying:

It is not What is said as much as it is How it is said.

This applies to tone.

Also, another saying:

Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Don't be mean when you say it.

To me, if I don't 'hear' sincerity in tone then I doubt the sincerity of someone's intentions. I question the motivation of the person.

[stevenleser]

12. Well said. I don't care what issue you are trying to further. Tone matters. nt

[kcr]

20. It matters. Is it the most important thing?

Is it never appropriate to adjust ones tone? Is anger ever justified? Is it ever okay to disregard an important message simply because you perceive that the tone is off?

[stevenleser]

31. Nope, not the most important thing. On the rest, by whom and where? On DU?

If you were Jewish and in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943, then as a progressive, I think most of us would now judge it acceptable for those folks back then to have picked up a rifle and start shooting the authority of the region, i.e. Germans.

For African Americans, LGBT and women today I think we would all judge it acceptable to take to the streets and behave in ways considered civilly disobedient to protest inequality as well as shout aggressive and confrontational slogans.

On DU where most people agree on those issues? Being obnoxious is not generally necessary.

[kcr]

37. It's not?

Well certainly, when people agree on the issues, why would you expect anyone to be obnoxious. When someone says something like, oh, say, women should only wear pretty things like sun dresses? They shouldn't wear ugly clothes, like Margaret Thatcher. What would you expect the response to be like? If you don't like to be harassed, wear a burqa. What then? Should people who go on a progressive board and say things like that expect civil responses? Should the rest of DU go over the responses with a fine toothed comb and point with a harsh judgment on any responses to them?

[stevenleser]

41. Nope, see my #33 below. nt

[kcr]

44. Well, why are you offering response 33 to me? I offered no false choice?

That response does not make sense to my post.

[stevenleser]

45. I think the second part of that post applies.

"there is a big difference between reacting to an instance of bigotry with an obnoxious retort, and being generally obnoxious."

There are definitely several folks who are generally obnoxious.

[kcr]

47. You've got me confused with someone else.

That is not a quote from my post. But whatever. Of course some people are obnoxious. DU is comprised of humans. I'd still be curious to see how you'd respond to my post.

[seabeyond]

167. i guess if you call a group you have disdain for as generally obnoxious in a pleasant tone,

it is ok

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. my answers:

No, I don't think it is the most important thing.

Anger can be justified.

Sometimes the Tone reveals just how important or Unimportant the message might be.

I used to work in an ER. In an emergency tone goes out the window.
But, Yeah the message was damn sure more important than the tone it was given.
Doctors shouting orders angrily. Did not matter. but, the urgency was in the tone and so Yeah it did matter.

A person in pain ... the tone ... could be irritating. So the tone is an indicator of pain.

If tone is off ... not that person's normal tone ... isn't that a message in and of itself?

[kcr]

38. I agree.

Anger is sometimes justified. I think you said it well. I honestly think it's as simple as that. A few people are just genuinely obnoxious because it's their personality, but many times it's an honest reaction.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. yes, Honest anger is far preferable than condscending sarcasm and

condescending sarcasm can most definitely bring out the honest anger in a person.
Being deliberately obtuse can make another person Honestly Angry.

[kcr]

46. Honest anger is best

but sarcasm has its place. It can go hand in hand with honest anger. Everyone deals with their anger in different ways. Now, being deliberately obtuse is another thing entirely. Ugh, that is the worst.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. Sarcasm can cut both ways tis true but, it is a Tone therefore deserves mention.

this link might prove helpful for those trying to understand and how it applies to writing ...

http://www.bing.com/search?q=tone+in+writing&pc=MOZI&form=MOZLBR

click on any link to read and understand Tone in Writing especially since we are all writing on a message board.

on edit: the link is for anyone kcr, did not mean to imply that you were not understanding/following me.

[seabeyond]

17. but then tuesday, there is the passive aggressive and could be saying the ugliest, in a passive

manner and totally get away with it. while the person that says what they mean, and means what they say might get a post hidden cause though not ugly, the tone... was the problem.

i have seen many posters use passive aggressive manner in order to create problems and walk off as if they do not have a care in the world after creating a major collision.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. Yes, I understand and the passive/aggessive is the hardest for me to counteract.

It is where DU3 fails miserably for me because I do not know how to solve that issue.

Passive/Aggressive people need clearly defined boundaries and DU3 is not that at all.

DU2 hid all that. There were clearly stated rules on DU2.

I tend to walk out of the thread and go into another thread.

I don't know what is the solution.

on edit: don't forget sea to remember: Don't be mean when you say it.

Not always easy for any of us to do in the heat of a debate/argument/discussion

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. sea, regarding your hides being due to your tone ... Not all of your hides should have happened

given the context of the thread they were in.

I personally think you are being alert stalked and jury shopped.

Accusing Your tone is their passive/aggressive way of hiding behind (generic)their own insincerity and, is the weapon of choice when they(generic) have lost the debate.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. If yr talking about not being able to discuss an issue without being abusive...

Then anyone like that's going to find themselves with hidden posts pretty quick and in the process alienating people who probably would agree with them if they weren't treating everyone else like they're the enemy. Having hung out for years in a forum renowned for its flame fests, my experience has been that those who hurl abuse quick and often are generally ignored ore not taken seriously by people. It is possible to discuss issues that fire up emotions civilly and without the yelling...

[stevenleser]

13. Yes, as I said in another thread, no DUer is above being called obnoxious.

Whatever progressive value you attempt to wrap yourself in while doing it, if you are being obnoxious to fellow DUers when you are doing it you are going to alienate people, rack up hidden posts and potentially attract the attention and adverse action from the admins.

[tammywammy]

16. +1 n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Exactly. It applies to arguing any issue here at DU...

There's no issue at DU where the issue is one where people get a pass to be rude and abusive because the issue's an important one. If people choose to ignore the community standards and believe they have a right to be abusive, chances are that a jury will catch up with them eventually. I know from my experience here that I've always been impressed with DUers who I don't agree with, but who can put up an argument in a way that's not making me feel as though they think I spend all days out and about kicking puppies and knocking the elderly off their motorised scooters for fun. It's the civil exchanges I've learnt from and enjoy participating in :hi)

[seabeyond]

170. and what about the people in this thread subtly talking about others, assigning them characteristics

in their reasonable tone because of a disdain they feel to those people. but their tone is so reasonable.

how does that person come off any better in their subtle insults and digs? just cause their "tone" is so much more pleasant to digest as they insult?

[Violet_Crumble]

301. I don't find subtle but polite digs difficult to deal with....

I've copped some of them over time and they don't annoy me, as I just respond in kind. What I'm talking about is abusive behaviour, the sort where the one doing it refuses to acknowledge that they've been abusive, but then points to the slightest thing from others and claims it's abusive.

I don't understand this 'tone' thing. When it comes to tone, I prefer to work within the diatonic scale, and stuff anyone who tells me I'm tone deaf. But because emails and posts on forums like this don't have the luxury of hearing a voice to hear the tone, it's pure guesswork when it comes to what tone someone's using. It's a whole different story when it comes to spotting whether a post or email is abusive and nasty, though, and I've seen a lot of those, and some of yr posts are right in there.

So, I guess my question is who first started talking about 'tone' when it comes to the latest flamewars? Because it seems to be a word used to replace 'nasty and hostile posts', that's all....

[Waiting For Everyman]

62. +1 Yep. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

22. exactly. You are not effective in your argument when you're abusive and you turn people

away as opposed to bringing them into the debate. Problem is most people don't really care if they bring people into the debate. They just like how it makes them feel superior to berate people they feel are doing something wrong.

[kcr]

26. It makes them feel superior

make the feel they are doing something wrong.

I and other feminists come up against this all the time. This is the tone argument. It's next to impossible to do anything about this. The recent gender wars dustup is a classic example of this. The you tube video from India got completely twisted into feminists telling men what to do. "they just like how it makes them feel superior" No. I'm sure you'd deny it if I accused you of feeling you could do no wrong, right?

[liberal_at_heart]

28. I refuse to be sucked into an argument. Go bait someone else.

I've already put about a dozen people on ignore today. I guess I can add one more.

[kcr]

29. Suit yourself

I guess that answers the tone question

[seabeyond]

169. ah.... tone. nt

[pintobean]

171. ditto

[seabeyond]

172. ah.... tone. there is a problem with my tone? i did it pleasantly. i merely pointed out tone.

yet, here is a perfect example how people use the tone issue.

what was the problem pinto, with my tone, while pointing out the poster was being less than pleasant?

share....

i ask

gently

with a smile

totally open in body to receive what you have to say

[Squinch]

87. I think you are berating people you feel are doing something wrong here.

I'm told that isn't an effective way to argue.

[Waiting For Everyman]

61. Yes.

Very soon, hidden posts are going to matter a lot more, and most DUers don't seem to believe in any special exceptions to be abusive, from what I can see.

I think that may be why some believe they're being persecuted -- because they're not getting the free pass they feel they're entitled to.

[seabeyond]

183. 161 171 174. what is in those tones? are they obnoxious? productive? will they get a hide?

there is more honesty in straight honest talk that is not all pretty than that behavior, do you not agree.

and no. i am not offended, bothered, angry, being obnoxious, irritated

i am making a point.

[Violet_Crumble]

302. I'm not seeing anything abusive in any of those posts...

Two of them are referring you to a post from Steven Leser on the topic of the OP, and the other one just says 'ditto' in response to you when you were talking to another person about their tone.

[The Straight Story]

10. You asked:

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:24 AM - Edit history (1)

And why is any individual's fragile ego - or their "feelings" - more important than the mistreatment and abuse to which human beings are subjected every day in this world?

Good question. I see a lot of folks who storm some threads complaining that folks don't agree in the right way or enough to suit their liking. I think DU is a progressive site and folks do agree on many issues but may not always over implementation.

Some examples:

PETA: I agree with PETA on the treatment of animals and I applaud their work for better living conditions for their food. Their tactics I often, however, find laughable and counter-productive. Some might, therefore, get the impression because of how I feel about peta I am all for animals suffering on factory farms.

Guns: I don't want guns in the wrong hands anymore than the rest of us, and I do see that as a problem in society. I don't think the wrong hands are everyday citizens though, but a subset of them. I believe in pushing for money for enforcement of gun laws (preferably at the expense of war on drugs, would be nice to take money from that ill fated endeavor). I don't think blaming the 99.3% for what the other .7% of people do with their guns is productive - point the small percent out, prosecute them,put them in jail. But don't use them as a battering ram against the people who are, indeed, responsible with their guns.

Democrats/President: All for them, but also against some things they do. Yemen droning? Not good. Fixing things so gays can serve in the military? Excellent. Every day can bring challenges where I find myself happy with what our elected folks are doing or upset.

I support the ideals, just not always the methods (quick example - help the economy, agree. Bailing out banks to do it, not so much agree).

Women's rights, rape culture, etc: Women have it shitty in this world for a plethora of reasons all around the globe - to be fair, and actually as part of that, so do many other groups - there is a reason I say that. Women face a generally unique set of problems that are mostly separate from the problems other face (not exclusively, but generally). I don't have a problem, in fact I think it prudent, that there is a focus on that group and it's issues.

While all races/genders/etc have similar issues (poverty, how they are portrayed, rape, and so on) the problems for women are far more rampant and institutionalized on a broader scale (poverty/poor people I think being the only group of which, as a whole, is larger and more oppressed).

The fight for equality that rages on intersects all groups, women, gays, men, the poor, disabled. Exposing the right wingers of this world (who by far are at the core of oppression though not alone in it) is a good thing.

Where folks take exception is not exposing and discussing said issues and working to eradicate them though. I don't think anyone on DU wants women to not have the vote, unequal pay or opportunity, inability to drive, etc and so on. The issues we see here come in during the application of ideals and the accusatory tones generated by some here when folks don't agree on some things (again, see peta above - agree on the ideals, not on the delivery/methods).

Examples? Well, recently someone posted in HOF that threads are showing up about women killing/harming/behaving badly in GD and it is therefore, most likely, an effort by men to slyly attack women. I have, of late, passed up posting some interesting stories I came across in my daily travels on the web that involved a female - which means, I suppose, I am now being sexist (in a benevolent way) because I am treating women differently so as not to offend them (one was a story about someone killing someone over an apple fritter - which was more a commentary on our society than women. But, for the sake of a few women, I will not subject them to such tales and stick to posting stories about men).

Staring would be another one. Rude to stare, no matter who it is. On the other hand people stare at a lot of things. The reason men supposedly stare at women is we are undressing them with our eyes and mentally having sex with them. I assure you I can stare at Arwen from the Lord of the Rings all day and admire the robes she is wearing, her eyes, and general beauty and not think about sex at all (same with someone like John Barrowman in Torchwood or Matt Smith of Dr. Who - both interesting people to look at that I admire).

At any rate, it is like the old saying goes - "Lord, protect me from your followers" which is to say, I believe in you, just don't always like some people and how they take that belief and act.

[blkmusclmachine]

15. "Sit Down & Shut Up." That's what they always tell us. "Do you want the GOP to win?!!"

And then as soon as they're elected, they set about helping enact GOP-lite legislation for 4-8 years.

[WowSeriously]

40. But they have a D next to their name. A D!

[intaglio]

18. rug just posted about exactly this point in "Religion"

In Defense of “Asshole” Atheism quoting from an article in Crackpot Chronicle

Countless times I’ve experienced politically correct atheists who magically believe in the idea of Unicorns and Rainbows Atheism. One such person recently commented:

”There are ways to express your opinion without insulting the beliefs of others; immature and tasteless!”

First off, religions and ideologies don’t have human rights like people; they are fair game for ridicule. “Respecting” an idea is based on the merit of the idea, not on the masses having an emotional attachment to it. The fact is this: You can be the most friendly atheist on the planet, and even hire the fucking Care Bears to write your rebuttal to a religious person. But no matter how tactfully you pillow your words, it’ll always amount to some version of: The beliefs you dedicated your entire life to are a colossal mistake.

[stevenleser]

19. Imagine for a moment everyone on DU behaving that way about their most important issue.

All of a sudden, it doesnt seem like such a good idea.

[intaglio]

23. This is true

If everybody had been polite about slavery ...

Perhaps if everybody had been polite about the Lebensraum concept ...

Of course everybody being polite about the Vietnam War worked so well ...

There are times when politeness works - but sometimes the other person is a big enough rectal sphincter to make it pointless.

[stevenleser]

25. Not to be pedantic, but those issues were not resolved by being obnoxious on DU

Nor will any important progressive issue be achieved by ratcheting up the obnoxiousness here.

[intaglio]

30. So you want people to be polite to those who say ...

... for example, that a high proportion of rape allegations are false when every bit of research in the area indicates the reverse?

You would like people to be polite to those advocating dubious or outright harmful patent nostrums?

You would like people to be polite to those who spout homophobic slurs?

You want us to be polite (more than once) to people who make dumb blonde jokes?

Sorry, no.

[stevenleser]

33. For starters, you offer a false dilemma. There is a lot in between polite and obnoxious.

It's not as if our only two choices in response to those kinds of statements are

A. Dear sir, I respectfully suggest that the response you gave is unfair to people like me.

and

B. You !@#$ing !@#$, get the !@#$ off of DU with that $%^&.


And there is a big difference between reacting to an instance of bigotry with an obnoxious retort, and being generally obnoxious.

[intaglio]

63. So you are objecting to obnoxious - but you did not make that clear

I am saying that politeness must often take second place to forthrightness.

Forthrightness is usually impolite and often rude because it makes no concessions in the direction of the opinion being expressed by another. It has nothing to do with obscenity.

[nomorenomore08]

293. Not that "obscenity" doesn't have its place as well - e.g. "Fuck you you fucking racist asshole!"

[seabeyond]

175. being blunt, to the point, factual, honest, does not equal obnoxious. not everyone

sugar coats conversation leaving others to struggle to figure out what is said. some merely say it the way they see it in a civil tone, with none of the frills. that does not make it obnoxious. it sounds like you are insisting on one melba toast style of communication and how boring and controlling is that.

is this tone incorrect? is it obnoxious? i am having a tough time listening to a few advocate only one style of voice and assigning, defining all other communications in teh negative. when there is nothing negative in it.

[Squinch]

84. That is a really good analogy.

When you speak against things that people hold in their cores, it doesn't matter how you say it, they're going to feel a threat. That point: "the beliefs you dedicated your entire life to are a colossal mistake" is always an insult to the hearer, but it is often also simply a true statement to the speaker.

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. I try to live my signature line.

The fact is this: You can be the most friendly atheist on the planet, and even hire the fucking Care Bears to write your rebuttal to a religious person. But no matter how tactfully you pillow your words, it’ll always amount to some version of: The beliefs you dedicated your entire life to are a colossal mistake.

It is possible to say what you think without ad hominem, and I try... but at the end of the day, there's still the last sentence. Deal with it head-on.

I've been called worse than an asshole.

[Waiting For Everyman]

24. Because we have Community Standards on DU.

People participating here get treated by those standards, and pulling the "tone card" is not a free pass to be abusive to other DUers. Simple.

The tactic of a small group demanding the utmost respect for themselves, yet having no intention of showing any at all to those they disagree with, has gone far enough. It's not me who's saying so, it's lots of people -- especially women who disagree with the small vocal minority of feminists.

It's this kind of attitude that we're tired of:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125530296#post12

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024242515#post114

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024242515#post122

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024242515#post138

We are not ok with being subjected to abuse right here ourselves, just because the vocal minority abusing us claims to be against abuse. Not gonna fly. If they gave a rat's butt about women, they wouldn't be abusing women right here. This isn't the outside world, where the tone argument is applicable, this is a message board, where basic behavior is required no matter how many minority issues a person has in real life.

[kcr]

34. So, it's obvious that there's a poster that you really don't like

why should that matter to DU exactly? Community standards isn't supposed to like Sheldon Cooper either?

[stevenleser]

42. That person has had a number of posts hidden recently so that situation will probably be resolved

one way or the other over the next few weeks and months.

[Waiting For Everyman]

64. Yes, I saw that.

The example I gave was only that, the same attitude and similar comments come from numerous people. Actually, I think several of the leaders (for lack of a better word) are more responsible for instilling that view of us than the people they egg-on.

We dissenting women are being "other-ized", and that is disturbing, and that in turn is why I'm making a point of it. For that matter, so are the men who disagree. It's pretty much the same thing.

[BainsBane]

68. You object to an abstract reference to women

and the idea that she doesn't automatically like every single woman on the planet, while you have called her out by name. She didn't mention you and for all you know wasn't even thinking about you. But so what if she was? You think she should be punished for thought crime? Whereas you attack her directly. You asked her to clarify what she meant in the other thread and then alerted on her response. I for one had no awareness of you until I saw you making a point of attacking Sheldon Cooper. I have no idea what your views are, other than the fact you dislike some feminists on the site. Personal vendettas are not an ideological position. They are nothing more than petty bickering.

If anyone is otherized it's women in HOF who some people make a point of attacking BY NAME on a regular basis. You condemn some others for something you do with far greater severity and specificity. The irony truly is astounding. If you have an actual point to make, then do so, but sitting around gossiping about members you don't like is just plain petty.

[Waiting For Everyman]

70. Save it.

Your tirade doesn't impress me. It also isn't the slightest bit accurate.

For one thing, I didn't alert, someone else did and I have no idea who. Unlike some, I don't pm a bunch of DUers rounding up support, and neither do I hear from any but very, very rarely, and it's been a long while.

[BainsBane]

74. It's far from a tirade

It's an observation of your behavior in this and the other thread, something you clearly refuse to reflect on. I find it ironic that you enraged that Sheldon might not automatically adore every woman on earth, while you feel absolutely no qualms about using this thread to pursue your personal conflict with her.

As for PMing people, I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion. It seems you are now upset that some people form friendships on the site. I'm certainly not going to apologize for getting to know and caring about people.

[seabeyond]

188. save it. tirade. slightest bit accurate.

I don't pm a bunch of DUers rounding up support

watch the tone. and can you please prove your accusation that anyone is pming rounding up support. or is this merely a fabricated accusation you throw at fellow duers?

[pintobean]

194. Wow

With a well known history of PMs, I'm surprised you went there.

[seabeyond]

197. honestly pinto. with what you did a couple days ago,

any respect i felt, like i had, it kinda went away. i do not know what you are talking about. but, i do feel a sense of integrity with some things. i feel you stepped over the line. i am sad about that. disappointed.

but, if your effort in this thread is to personally trash me more, like you did in that other thread, then i want nothing to do with it.

say what you will. what i will not do is put forth any effort to defend myself, try to clarify any action or what was said. i know that is a waste of time. because the point is not about clarification, it is all about vilifying a person. i have already been there. i have already experienced it on du. go at it haus. trash me.

[polly7]

203. I think he's referring to how 'you' villified

people passing around nasty pm's about their private information.

But you're actually excellent at turning things completely around to appear the victim, once again.

[seabeyond]

206. stoke the fire, attack the duer, create the outrage... again polly. been there. go at it.

i find it distasteful. dishonest. you seem to bask in it.

[polly7]

211. Are you seriously unable to understand how what you did was

all of those things you just mentioned above?!

Unbelievable.

No, reminding you of it is not an attack, stoking any fire, distasteful or dishonest. The act itself, was ........... and more. But you seem to lack the ability to emphasize with your target or even admit how much damage you caused by doing it. You drove someone to become physically ill. And here you are .......


ps .... your target was also a DU'er. A kind, honest, intelligent one who didn't deserve that kind of cruelty.

[UtahLib]

216. Very well said.

The nasty vindictive grudges being carried out by the same few posters is disgustingly obvious. They, of all people, considering posting history,
have no justification for throwing stones.

It is so much easier to concentrate on what we perceive as faults in others than to consider what our own might be.

[polly7]

224. Nah .......... it's just watching the holier-than-thou

I wouldn't stoop to that kind of garbage, when many of us have seen it happen right in front of our eyes in ugly, cruel ways. Hypocrisy, ya know.

[pintobean]

225. That was before your time

If you know what happened, you either heard about it long after the fact, or this isn't your first rodeo.

[UtahLib]

256. You know, pintobean

I wasn't going to respond to this but reconsidered because of your slyly worded accusation made in an effort to let me know that I have no right to my opinion.

Having discovered DU during the last election and considering where I live and am confronted with on a daily basis, I was thrilled to join this community in October of last year.

I was aghast when I stumbled upon Meta only to witness the vitriolic and contentious discussions that consisted of nothing more than attacks from posters that will never let go of a grudge. So yes, I have been here long enough to discern patterns some posters have established.

I can only relate my thoughts when witnessing posters admit to bookmarking OPs to assist them in their efforts to shame, demean or attack other posters. I see this as harboring animosity and going to extraordinary lengths to justify the hatred you display for the people you seem to target for attack rather than discussing the subject of the thread you have entered.

As I often told my two daughters and the three nephews I helped to raise, justifying hatred in order to carry out and act upon a grudge, is much more damaging to the person holding onto that hatred than the person to whom it is directed.

[pintobean]

220. What I did?

You've got to be kidding. You tried to make me look like a liar because I hadn't remembered something from a few years ago exactly right. When I went and found that thread, it was far worse than what I remembered. I had forgiven you for what you had done, but you never saw anything wrong with it. Then you tried to throw it back in my face. Jeeze.

Here's the sub-thread from a few days ago, in case anyone wants to judge for themselves:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024218190#post342


As to your PM history, anyone who read Meta early last year knows.

[polly7]

242. Well that was fairly disgusting!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024218190#post342

Some people just completely lack the ability for self-reflection and find nothing wrong with even the vilest of things they say or do. Yet, they're so sensitive towards the reactions of others. Blows my mind.

[pintobean]

246. Nothing wrong with the tone there, though.

Maybe some self reflection will come during the forced vacation. I think that's what they're designed for.

But, I doubt it.

[polly7]

270. I can guarantee it won't, in this case.

There was no remorse after that ugly pm'ing incident, hell ...in fact, she hid for days while the whole board was trying to figure it out, and couldn't apologize, let alone accept responsibility. To this day I doubt she's given it a second thought other than how 'persecuted' she felt when people finally found out who had done it. I think we all know someone in RL like this, and it's pointless even trying to get it through their heads how their words and vile actions have the ability to seriously affect others. The ability to empathize just is not there. Yet I've seen this poster post about online bullying as though she really cares about the subject. I mostly laugh at her claims of concern for pretty much anything having to do with the welfare of others now. It's all about how people treat her 24/7, and screw the people she's hurt.

[Waiting For Everyman]

251. You're accusing me of making accusations

that don't even exist.

For you information, the sentence you are focusing on is only there to gratuitously and subordinately further elaborate, in passing, on the primary beginning statement made in that paragraph... the fact that I don't know who alerted on Sheldon Cooper's hidden post, but it wasn't me, which is what BainsBane wrongly accused me of doing in her preceding post which I was responding to. If you must know, it further elaborated on the fact that I don't have any WAY of knowing who the alerter was. Nothing more is there. There is nothing more to it. Anything else was read into it by the reader.

How does that concern you in the slightest? (You were not accused of anything, BainsBane was not accused of anything, I WAS WRONGLY ACCUSED BY BOTH OF YOU.)

And how many layers of false poo-flinging do I have to unravel simply because each of you two chose to make false accusations about me? I'm the one who has actually been falsely accused TWICE now in this small subthread alone!

Are we done yet? In case you want an example of what the problem is that we've been talking about, this is it. This is it, what you're doing right here, right now. I deserve an apology but I'm not holding my breath. Have a nice evening.


(I'm seeing the image of a car, careening down a crowded sidewalk full of pedestrians... )

[seabeyond]

252. we are focused on tone. the words you chose are hostile. all abotu the tone.

[Waiting For Everyman]

253. I see that it bugs you deeply that you falsely accused someone. nt

[seabeyond]

255. i do not believe i did. i understand you believe it. i think you are wrong.

i pulled out specific words that were meant to be hostile or offensive.

you may feel the need to justify or validate your usage, but words matter.

i am gonna say this post i am replying to is sarcastic. right? does that fall under the tone argument. lack of sincerity to communicate in good faith?

[Waiting For Everyman]

258. Wrong. There's nothing at all insincere there.

There's nothing at all that isn't in good faith. You believe what you want, do what you want. I cleared off the mud you tried to throw, that's all I need to do here.

[seabeyond]

259. I see that it bugs you deeply that you falsely accused someone

this wasnt sarcastic?

" I cleared off the mud you tried to throw"

tone. be nice.

[Waiting For Everyman]

264. Heard of understatement?

Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2013, 05:53 AM - Edit history (1)

[seabeyond]

265. tone....

[Waiting For Everyman]

299. deaf

(Note to jurors: I assume we're playing word association.)

[pintobean]

261. FYI

I alerted on the post that they're accusing you of alerting on. I'm posting this to expose them for what they are, not because they deserve to know. For BB to act like there's something wrong with alerting is a joke.

Here is a page posted by admin and available for every DUer to view in the name of transparency.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

[seabeyond]

266. if you include me as part of "they" you might want to correct that.

[Waiting For Everyman]

296. Wow, thank you!

Joke is right! That link is very interesting, to say the least.

Hmm.

(An extra thanks, for several cool things I've seen you do lately. I miss a lot, but I catch on to a little bit, now and then.)

[Vashta Nerada]

58. One of them has more than five hidden posts, yet somehow manages to say afloat.

Seems as though community standards only apply to most, not all DUers.

[kcr]

59. Community standards doesn't exist.

Community standards is whatever that particular jury happens to say it is at that time. Community standards is whatever jury you happen to luck out in pulling at that time. In other words, community standards is a joke.

[treestar]

138. True.

Direct insults can stand in the right circumstances. That means some people actually can insult others, if they get the right jury. Some posters can be insulted likewise.

[Waiting For Everyman]

60. Community Standards will have its day pretty soon.

On January 6, those with more than 5 hides will be getting an automatic time-out until the number drops to 4. For some people, it appears that will be several weeks or more.

That will be interesting to see. I expect less insistence on this "free pass" attitude after that, because most DUers aren't buying this special treatment idea and the hides will rack up.

Of course, at the same time we'll probably hear more crabbing about being persecuted, when in fact, it's a result of the same standards and system that applies to everybody else.

[seabeyond]

204. a whole post of ugly as you insult others for what you perceive the same? but, that is good, right?

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

see, this little subthreads of insults and calling people out, and really, mean spiritedness will get a pass. while talking about others.

i see a hypocrisy in that. i do not like hypocrisy. and i call the hypocrisy out.

you will be fine posting the hypocrisy. i may not be fine calling it out.

that is the difference i see.

not a pleasant subthread, is it?

[Waiting For Everyman]

260. Are you saying the rules aren't fair?

I think they are.

[seabeyond]

269. what i said clearly is you had a whole lot of ugly in your post.

[Waiting For Everyman]

298. That's an odd word for you to use.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024243969#post220

[polly7]

275. lmfao. nt.

[polly7]

274. Exactly right. It should be interesting. nt.

[Sheldon Cooper]

77. Looks like I'm living rent free in someone's head.

Awesome!

[polly7]

88. No, but your words and insults leave a mark ...

just as do those from anyone.

I'm glad you think it's so awesome. That's just what bullies do, take pride in their abuse and pat themselves on the back over it.

[Sheldon Cooper]

112. Oh polly

I wouldn't let any bully live rent free in MY head.

[polly7]

119. Me either ........

but many people can't help let things like that bother them. Bullying and abusive treatment are really insidious, the way they can affect people for a long time.

[Bonobo]

55. No one said more important.

But how you speak to people is always important. On the other hand, not every one wants to be nice. Some want to be assholes.

[nomorenomore08]

65. Except that "being an asshole" is sometimes necessary.

I don't want to use an extreme example like slavery or the Holocaust, because that would be a bit disingenuous, but exactly how are people supposed to react when others tell them what they can or can't discuss or in what "tone"? Especially when the people being condescended to are fighting to maintain a fairly basic freedom and autonomy.

[Bonobo]

66. I agree on that

But when it is a non controversial topic and you wind up even offending and alienating those who agree with you, you have either failed or succeeded in intentionally create the appearance of opposition where there actually is none.
I think that is the obvious modus operandi for some in the HOF group.

[Orrex]

103. When seeking allies in a struggle, it's in the seeker's interest not to be a jerk

While we can't dictate the correct "tone" that someone should use in all cases, everyone maintains standards regarding the tone to which they will and won't be receptive.

That doesn't mean that a sugar-and-spice attitude is needed, or that the person should be timid and demure in executing the struggle in question, but if someone is hoping to rally support for a cause, they'll do better if they respect their target audience, rather than screaming at the audience for not already being on board.

[lumberjack_jeff]

166. Are they empowered to set these rules?

There's enough to argue in the content of people's posts without worrying overmuch about what they think about me.

From some posters, every third post is an accusation of MRAs infiltrating DU. I wonder why they think it's effective. It would be a weak argument even if it were true.

Tone is a consideration in posting, but it is far below honesty, accuracy, substance and avoiding fallacious logic.

[nomorenomore08]

267. No one has the power to "set the rules" (except, say, the moderators of a website).

The reason I posted the OP was because I felt that important issues were being neglected in the process of arguing over "tone."

[pacalo]

67. I can think of one good reason why tone is probably more important at our venue of discussion.

If you follow DU's rules, you won't get a time-out under the new 5-hides rule.

And, thinking back to the Meta days, if you want other posters to hear your message, treat those who have different points of view in a civil way. Otherwise, you will have earned a notoriety that you'll regret later on. You take your chances & you reap what you sow.

[Jester Messiah]

76. Because if you alienate all your would-be allies, you won't have any left and your cause will fail.

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

To analogize, I'm willing to help you move, but if you insist that I wear a hair-shirt and kiss your feet prior to letting me heft heavy boxes up nine flights of stairs for you, I'll probably just give you the bird and leave.

* Or put you on ignore. Hello, ignored user, whoever you are!

[boston bean]

165. That was so nicely put... LOL nt

[Squinch]

295. It's nice to be nice to the nice.

[JNelson6563]

80. It's not more important than the issue.

But if you are looking to win people to your view of an issue then it could be just as important. If you choose an offensive "tone" or "approach" you repel people and you achieve nothing. Your cause withers and dies.

So yeah, it matters. If you really want supporters it is worth the effort. If you're just soap-boxing to get yourself a fresh fix of self-righteousness then I guess it doesn't matter.

(And by "you"/"you're" I mean in general, not you specifically nomorenomore08)

Julie

[boston bean]

86. Many times the argument of tone is projected when no such thing has taken place.

It is used to whip up a mass of personal attacks.

[JNelson6563]

96. Of course, I was thinking real world.

I'm sure you make a valid point about interwebs behavior. In that case, at least for me, if I really want to make a point and have it alone be the topic, I am very careful about word choice. Other times, not so much.

I am all too aware that if you want to win others to your way of thinking you have to forego the luxury of including emotional language. While including it can bring instant gratification, foregoing it can be far more effective--though the gratification delayed.

Julie

[pintobean]

94. +1

[on point]

81. Politicians and corps are focused on marketing (ie the 'con') more than real things

They think the problem is the marketing program being less than successful. It just needs a new image, a new jingle, a new tone or approach in order to make the con work.

Here is hoping people wake up to what is done being more important than what is said!

[99Forever]

83. Don't want to get negative "tone" from people?

Don't talk shit about them as if you know them.

You get what you give.

[Squinch]

85. Oh, now that isn't nice. Maybe if you said it in a nicer way, people would listen.

[99Forever]

95. Actually, no they don't.

Been there, done that, Got kicked in the teeth for my effort.

Want me to treat you with respect? Then do the same for me.

Gonna lay a load of shit on me? I will fight back.

[Squinch]

97. I'm sorry, but you are just alienating your allies, now.

[99Forever]

101. Funny...

... that's exactly how I would describe what a certain few on this forum have done a bang up job at.

Here's your mirror.

[Squinch]

105. And yet look at your response:

"Been there, done that, Got kicked in the teeth for my effort.

Want me to treat you with respect? Then do the same for me.

Gonna lay a load of shit on me? I will fight back."

That seems to be a very logical response by someone who has attempted to forward what they consider to be reasonable arguments but gets treated with disrespect in return.

People get pissed when others lay a load of shit on them. And they tend to fight back. As you say.


And PS: Wasn't that an insulting thing for me to say?: "oh, you should just be nicer"

[99Forever]

115. Passive/aggressive bullshit.

[Squinch]

120. That wasn't nice.

[99Forever]

122. But it was true.

Who do these people think they are fooling?

[Squinch]

125. So sometimes you can make a valid point without being nice?

Should I listen to your point in spite of your very not-nice tone?

[99Forever]

129. I've had my fill of your passive/aggressive bullshit.

Have a nice day.

[Squinch]

130. Ok! Be nice, now!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

168. oh my

you just managed to make that person unwittingly play the role of certain mentioned feminists

while you characterized (very well) the role of certain mentioned MRA/MG types

That is exactly what has been happening over and over and again.

[cinnabonbon]

178. I know, right?

That was a thing of beauty.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

182. It really was. I hate that person got "used" like that but, it just shows how effective

the Sugarcoated Tone works at Irritating people that are approaching ANY Topic Sincerely and Honestly.

The people that refuse/can not see this happening (for whatever reason) are either Tone Deaf, Obtuse or, Lack Reading Comprehension Skills of Nuance and Subtlety.

[cinnabonbon]

186. I totally agree.

[kcr]

190. Well played, Squinch!

[boston bean]

210. Excellent, Squinch!

things that make you hmmmmm....

Figured it would have dawned on him, but alas... no...

[boston bean]

89. I've seen more personal attacks against feminists and a group of feminists on DU

than I have seen in any other issue.

My opinion is the "tone" argument is used to deflect and derail a genuine conversation. Why someone would do that... well, that is up to the reader to decide I guess.

Many times I come to the conclusion that they don't support feminist issues. Other times, I see ignorance. Other times, I see that they feel a personal affront when sexism is pointed out or EVEN discussed.

Also, one should take note that telling feminists their tone is wrong harkens back to, we aren't going to listen to you, your opinion means nothing, even if you are right, you said it wrong and I'm shutting you out. I'm sure women aren't the only group of minorities where this "tone" argument takes place. It is basically telling someone to know their place. So, it is an insult to begin with, that some wish feminists would internalize and accept, so their voice is but a whisper.

[polly7]

90. And I've seen exactly the opposite.

More personal attacks against other DU'ers by a group of feminists on DU against anyone who has a mind of their own and differs in opinion.

[boston bean]

92. Of course you have. nt

[polly7]

93. No, not of course, at all.

Just a recollection of a very long history of it. Are you denying it?

[boston bean]

99. I see a discussion of an issue, where people personally attack, instead of a discussion of the issue

As a matter of fact, I see a lot of personal attacks from you out on the board, not to me necessarily, but calling people liars, untruthful...

I'm not going down that path with you. You can think what you like about me.

I'll continue on my merry way, with giving my opinion on how I see the issue, not matter how you try to frame my words.

[polly7]

102. LOL!

I reply with exactly what I get.

And yes, I have highlighted some pretty ugly lies about what I was 'supposed' to have said, that turned out to be twisting of my words to mean something completely unintended and ugly. I reserve the right to correct those lies.

I don't think about you at all except for the very few seconds it takes to reply to a post of yours.

I'll continue on my merry way with also giving my opinion while continuing to point out the dirty tactics used against many, many people here.

[boston bean]

104. If you would like to continue in calling people liars instead of the discussing issues

that is your prerogative.

I don't see much discussion about the actual issue from you. I see a bunch of personal accusations you make. It's really not worth my time to try and discuss important issues with someone who refuses to discuss the actual issue at hand.

[polly7]

106. Link to me calling anyone a liar.

I've told someone (your pal) not to lie about me. I was VERY angry at being purposefully represented that way, but many people live to do that sort of thing.

Link to me calling someone a liar. I'll wait.

And .... I discuss plenty of issues, including women's right. Not one OP I've posted about it has had a single member of your HOF group chime in or probably even read it. Which is good, actually, as they don't get taken over by the abuse and controlling behaviour that seems to be certain member's trademark.

[boston bean]

109. When you would like to actually discuss a feminist issue with me, let me know.

[polly7]

110. No link?

Typical.

[boston bean]

111. When you would like to discuss an actual feminist issue, let me know.

[polly7]

117. I enjoy very much (mostly reading about) all issues posted here.

Even the one in this OP, as I see members here using the 'tone' issue as just something else to claim they're victimized for. If someone can't get their point across without abusing others though, I really don't think they have much to offer. Which is why I can't see the point in discussing any issue with you, as it's always the same thing. Like Groundhog day.

[boston bean]

127. I wouldn't call my characterization of the "tone" argument victimization, but a feminist POV.

Victimization would be your characterization.

BTW, I'm more than happy to discuss any feminist issue with you, whether we agree or not. What I am not going to do is bring this down to a personal level, where the issue is not discussed, but individual people are. You keep wanting to bring it back to that. I'm not going there with you.

[polly7]

128. I call it victimization.

You did bring it down to a personal level. Do you not read your posts? Where is that link.

[boston bean]

131. Ok, you call it victimization.

I've read my posts and now I did not bring it to a personal level.

Again, when you would like to discuss feminists issues with me, I'll be more than happy to.

[polly7]

134. Yes, you did.

As a matter of fact, I see a lot of personal attacks from you out on the board, not to me necessarily, but calling people liars, untruthful...

If you would like to continue in calling people liars instead of the discussing issues

that is your prerogative.

I don't see much discussion about the actual issue from you. I see a bunch of personal accusations you make. It's really not worth my time to try and discuss important issues with someone who refuses to discuss the actual issue at hand.

- link?!!

[pintobean]

141. She obviously doesn't like your tone. /nt

[polly7]

145. None of them do.

But they know I remember ..... stuff, and don't fall for the image they've created as them being the persecuted ones here. Also, after seeing all the shitty things they call certain men, and women like me in their safe, untouchable group - people who absolutely believe in equality for women and who have done much in real life to help victims, but think that abusing others to discuss it and promoting divisiveness is counter-productive. As well as brow-beating people on threads in GD and twisting words and intent - drives me batty watching that, and I don't think it should be allowed. Why would anyone want to discuss something when they know they're going to be treated like crap for it at the first disagreement.

[pintobean]

153. And anyone can go to that group

and see exactly what you are saying. I think they often forget that. The use that little, private meta to discuss and trash DU and it's members. If anyone has the audacity to go in there to defend themselves, they get blocked. I see you're #40 of 45 blocked members. Anyone who isn't blocked knows they will be if they post in there with the wrong tone.

When they come into GD with the same attitudes, they're shocked that they're not received with open arms. Don't dare question their tone. It's amusing to see the hypocrisy.

[polly7]

158. Yes, I got blocked for calling out a lie.

One that got me a post hidden, though I care nothing about that ...... but the lie just really pissed me off.

[NaturalHigh]

249. I used to go in there. Not any more.

I haven't gone for a long time now. I swear it's like staring into the Ark of the Covenant. It burns!

Oh, and thanks for explaining the whole meta thing to me. Sounds like that was a hoot.

[boston bean]

144. You are right polly, I got down in the mud with you at the beginning of this thread.

No more though.

let's stick to the issues.

[polly7]

146. So you were 'untruthful' about that?

[boston bean]

147. Are you calling me a liar?

[polly7]

148. I said you were untruthful about it. Which you were. nt.

[boston bean]

149. LOL. have a good one!

[HappyMe]

133. I think you've hit on it.

There's the my way or the highway tone and the victim tone. Dump 'em into a bowl and mix on high until it splatters everywhere.

[polly7]

135. See that's what I wanted to say, but was distracted with all the personal accusations!

Exactly, HappyMe!

[Orrex]

121. Why do you hate women?

You shameless woman-hater!

[polly7]

126. LOL. I know, right?!

I HATE bullying. Online and in real life. And the way certain men and women are treated here is just exactly that - abusive, scummy bullying with no fear of real reprisal followed by the 'you just want us to shut up!' claim when called on it.

[HappyMe]

150. It is thinly diguised bullying.

It's hard to ascertain any decent point that might be made from the accusations, generalizations and name calling.

[polly7]

152. Yes, it is ..

and once it starts, the whole point gets lost. Which is a shame, because I think most people here actually do believe the same things about women's rights and those of every human being on the planet, but it's inevitably all turned into an us vs. them battle. There's no learning in this, just drama and hard-feelings.

[Vashta Nerada]

199. Many of the discussions started on the topics you're talking about

are already started in an accusatory way in the OP. When an OP attacks a certain subset of the discussion forum's population, how do you think they're going to respond?

There was an OP poll started yesterday asking the forum readers what they thought of the gender wars threads. 62% of the participants agreed that they're started to divide and conquer, and yet you decided to (coincidentally) post an OP about rape culture a few hours later. I'm sure it wasn't started to garner discussion. It was started to devolve into a trainwreck, and it did.

[boston bean]

202. Really, a post about rape culture that names no one, no group

is the same as the personal attacks I am speaking of?

Also, posting a video of street harassment in India with no other commentary about anyone DUer or DU group is the same.

There's an awful lot of projection going on to justify what is happening around here.

[Vashta Nerada]

205. Yeah, I'm sure your thread was started to garner discussion...

even as this website was in the wake of the "gender wars" threads from Christmas.



It speaks a lot about an individual when they blame others for what they themselves are doing.

[boston bean]

207. Again, projection from you.

What is so damned insulting about posting about rape culture from a well known democratic feminist?

Why can't I post about that?

[Vashta Nerada]

209. I'm not saying you can't post about it.

What I'm saying is that the thread wasn't started for the purposes of serious discussion.

[boston bean]

212. In your opinion, again MORE projection. I sat there and participated and

even though there were uncalled for attacks, I was not that way myself, and managed to actually have quite a few good exchanges.

[Vashta Nerada]

213. But, like I said, in the wake of the "gender wars" threads

you had to have known there were going to be personal attacks, right?

But you went ahead and posted anyways.

[boston bean]

214. Why should I have to expect personal attacks

by posting something that most here would agree with, or so I'm told.

You are worrying about the wrong thing.

Start wondering why a post like that would bring about the type of personal attacks it did, with NO commentary on the subject of the OP whatsoever. If people hate me, more than they hate rape culture, then so be it, I have no control over that. Why are you trying to make it seem as if I do? If I am the true enemy and rape culture is not, well then, what the hell ever.

[Vashta Nerada]

219. You're not innocent in this.

That's my point.

[boston bean]

221. I'm not innocent? I'm guilty of what? Being a feminist some don't like?

It's not my ideas mind you that some don't like, they just don't like me, I'm told this all the time. Well I'll live, I guess.

What is this like 3rd grade.

[Vashta Nerada]

228. No, not because you're a feminist.

The threads you start have something everybody should learn from in the OPs.

What it comes down to is that it seems like you like to stir shit.

[boston bean]

229. Hmmmm.... My posts that name no one, call out no DUer and represent

a democratic POV are stirring shit? Because I like to stir shit? No, I don't. Again, more projection on your part in describing my motives.

My motives are to discuss what I posted about and learn. Not be attacked. I don't like being attacked. Most people don't. Why in the world you would think that would be my end game, is beyond me. But that you think it is, is on you, not me.

[nomorenomore08]

273. And why should people who are merely telling the *truth* about the world we live in, be personally

attacked? That's what's so screwed up about the whole thing to me.

[Squinch]

307. So she should expect personal attacks, but she is the one with the tone problem?

Do you see any problem with that?

[nomorenomore08]

272. So she can post about it, but only in a way you approve of...

I know that's not what you're literally saying, buy you should probably think about your own "tone" a little as well.

[NaturalHigh]

222. I trashed that thread and moved on.

It was destined to be a clusterfuck from the beginning.

[Vashta Nerada]

312. Yeah, so did I. Apparently I'm the one with the problem.

[HappyMe]

98. Which one would convince more people,

and invite good discussion:

1) Well, A is the way it should be. If you don't think A, you are part of the problem! There is no A and B, A is the way right-thinking people believe.

2) Well, A is a good idea. Okay, what part of A isn't doing it for you? There are good points about A and B, combining some of each sounds good.

I personally don't respond well to in your face type argument. I just stop listening because the point is lost in the person's attempt to talk at me.

edit to add - I kind of think that it's the people with the fragile egos that use the snotty, in your face, my way or the highway type argument. Maybe they don't want to really hear another viewpoint or idea that would poke a couple of holes into their ideas and ego. It might be possible to have a huge ego that's fragile too.

[polly7]

136. +1000! nt.

[NaturalHigh]

227. "I personally don't respond well to in your face type argument."

The people who use that approach here (and it's really just a very small, but vocal, minority) can't seem to understand that. Their "my way or hit the fuckin' highway" approach does nothing to further their causes and only makes enemies. They also can't understand why everyone doesn't just automatically agree with their opinions.

[HappyMe]

233. It also doesn't make you 'heard'

or brave or even passionate about your cause.

[Crunchy Frog]

114. Just a personal opinion,

but I would suggest that "tone" and "approach" is what enables genuine conversation about important issues to take place, as opposed to the simple shouting matches and exchanges of insults that characterize most of our current public discourse.

Screaming and attacking about an injustice is not necessarily going to solve it, let alone, bring other people around to your way of thinking about it.

JMHO.

[NaturalHigh]

116. It's not. Not at all.

That doesn't mean that people are obligated to agree with your every opinion or to keep quiet if they disagree. It also doesn't mean that people are going to be won over by insults.

And if you're whining about being broad-brushed or stereotyped, then why don't you try and actually DO something about the problem?

Well, to answer that, not every problem is mine to solve. For you to assume that it is is just arrogance on your part. To assume that what is important to you is also important to me speaks of your own hubris.

[Iggo]

118. It ain't.

Tone arguments are fucking stupid.

[Feral Child]

123. You're making excuses

for arguing from emotion rather than logic.

Fact is, some folks are so emotionally involved in their pet-issues they become incoherent.

I'm including both sides in the recent flame-fests you're tiptoeing around. This is a forum for discussion, not street-fights.

That crap reflects badly on us as a community and I don't think a single mind, not a single attitude, was changed in the flurry of shots that were discharged. The folks involved just thrashed around, venting their ugly emotions in public and it became an orgy of masturbatory rage.

All involved should be ashamed of themselves.

[treestar]

132. It naturally distracts the listener

So you have less chance of persuading them.

[valerief]

137. Diversionary tactic by non-progressives. That's what political correctness is, too.

It's a rhetorical tool to keep from discussing issues.

That's why Bill Maher named his show Political Incorrectness, so certain topics COULD be discussed.

Oh and BTW, this thread is another diversionary tactic. Calling out diversionary tactics is a diversion. I'm guilty now of calling out the calling out of diversionary tactics.

Calling out is a tool that can be used ad infinitum. It's the bane of forums. Postwise, it's like a snake eating its tail.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

176. +1

[Starry Messenger]

143. It isn't. It's a derailing technique.

No one who uses it was an ally to begin with.

[historylovr]

254. +1.

[ananda]

162. Weell, they saayy that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

But when it comes to speaking out against hate, I do not think there
is a wrong way to do that. The only wrong would be to say or do nothing.

[seabeyond]

218. The only wrong would be to say or do nothing.

i strongly believe this. i taught my sons this. i expect them to be courageous enough to be able to. i know some are unable for different reasons. but if a person can, they should. i like this. thank you

[Squinch]

262. Those who say that always seem to me to have missed the point.

Because, while THEY may be interested in catching flies, I am usually interested in making a point. And you are right. The only wrong thing would be to say nothing.

[gulliver]

184. People are almost completely rational creatures.

But they do have a thin veneer of emotion.

[seabeyond]

215. well. i made it thru half the thread. posts seem directed exclusively at dissing hof as they

lecture us on tone. not being nice enough.

how nice are we expected to be with repeated insults and fabricated comments defining who we are.

no rational, reasonable person sees the hypocrisy of this thread?

[Vashta Nerada]

217. Your transparency page begs to differ.

The phrase repeated insults is apropos there.

Take your own advice.

[seabeyond]

223. i disagree.

[seabeyond]

226. and you really ignored what i put in this reply, swinging the conversation in a different direction.

how about addressing what i actually posted. which is the point of my post.

[NaturalHigh]

230. I see it much differently...

and I have had enough insults thrown at me by HOF people to understand a thing or two about "repeated insults and fabricated comments."

[boston bean]

231. Can you point me to some threads where you are being discussed and insulted by name on DU? nt

[NaturalHigh]

232. Not only discussed but insulting replies to me...

and the worst was about a month ago (maybe six weeks). I'm not going to bother to dig through my old stuff right now, but one of the HOF troops was asking for links to my posts so she could try to get me MIRTed. She sits on MIRT, btw, and I think she was just posting that to try to intimidate me. Nothing I said was even hidden, though I know it was alerted on. Pretty much what I expect.

[boston bean]

234. I get insulting replies all the time. I want to know if

people are discussing and attacking you by name in posts.

I don't know what you mean by the HoF troops? I have no idea what you are discussing, was this in the open, asking for links about you or what?

Also, I probably get alerted on all the time too. I've been told as well.

[NaturalHigh]

236. In the open asking about links?

Yes.

As for HOF troops, I think you know exactly what I mean. As it's against the rules, I'll not name names.

By name...I can't remember. It was more just replies and links to replies and then "have you reported him to MIRT? Send me the links."

[boston bean]

237. I would need to see the conversation.

I wouldn't agree with it if that is what happened as you say. However, you could help a bit and lay off the criticizing an entire group of people here on DU. It's childish.

[NaturalHigh]

239. Yeah. It always falls anywhere but the people...

who actually start the flaming to "lay off the criticizing an entire group of people here on DU."

[boston bean]

240. You started it... No you did, No you did, No you did.

can we all grow up a little here?

[NaturalHigh]

244. My plan is to see how this place is after Jan 7th or 8th...

If it's still a flame fest, then I'm going to fill up my ignore list and try to stay zen. I will never agree with that crowd anyway, so no need to waste my time.

[seabeyond]

235. see, and i do not know that is true. i do know that on this thread, your posts were

exclusively about insulting a group of people.

i do know on this thread, people that have a real disdain for hof are exclusively in here insulting us.

those are facts.

often, my replies are not necessarily for the poster. it is for clarification on the reader that is reading thru a thread. i KNOW, that what i say to the poster does not matter. so, i address the reader.

you feel you are receiving "repeated insults and fabricated comments." elsewhere. point it out. it is not on this thread. i am point out what is on this thread, for every reader to observe.

[NaturalHigh]

238. See my post 232...

and I'm pretty sure you were in that particular thread a while back and making absolute bogus claims about me. I'm sure I could go back and find it in my old stuff, but I just don't feel like doing it right now. That was where my "real disdain for hof" and one particular poster (who is not you) began.

[seabeyond]

241. honestly, i cannot recall. i would have to read it. i do know, that over the last couple days,

i have had a lot of your posts directed at me. i know i address what you put in the posts. and i know you have done a lot of insulting. and still, i address the issue.

i cannot address something i know nothing about.

what i am addressing is what is happening in this thread. and again, something you made no comment about, at all.

[NaturalHigh]

243. I looked in my history for that thread...

but apparently it's too far back. As for insults, if I have insulted you personally, then I will take this opportunity to apologize.

[seabeyond]

245. lol. i really could not recall natural. but, i have appreciated

the opportunity of listening to you the last handful of days, gaining an appreciation, even though you have spent a lot of time insulting us as a group.

with all the recent posts back and forth, i have been able to look past that roadblock. i find that interesting.

[ismnotwasm]

247. Well I'll tell you a secret-- it depends on the topic

When a major changes are finally, albeit still slowly, happening, with a struggle for specific groups that has been going on for decades, or centuries who, while they may or may not have had allies still had to fight every step of the way, through fear and pain and assault and death only to find they still have to fight for things they thought already won, tone doesn't mean that much.

People either are aware of the impact of century long struggles are or they are not, or more likely and more my point, if their own secure place in society is being challenged--there's a backlash. A request for politeness is a kind of "let me think about this" delaying tactic, usually combined or false comparisons to other stuggles, because people don't take the time to learn, or as human beings tend to do, learn only what supports our own opinion.

Tone means be quiet, don't argue, lighten up, stop being so Politically correct, wait; change will happen naturally, you've already archived equality what more do you what, it's your nature to be x, y, or z.

Every single oppressed group has heard these argument of tone, but In terms of gender we are dealing with societal expectations that are embedded in a patriartical heterosexist and heteronormative society.

Sometimes it takes a crowbar, not soft words to separate the true from false and for those who argue truth is subjective, I would reply not for human rights it isn't, not for standards of equality it isn't, and certainly not in the face of proprogated lies should truth EVER be spoken softly.

[seabeyond]

248. Sometimes it takes a crowbar, not soft words to separate the true from false

Sometimes it takes a crowbar, not soft words to separate the true from false and for those who argue truth is subjective, I would reply not for human rights it isn't, not for standards of equality it isn't, and certainly not in the face of proprogated lies should truth EVER be spoken softly

excellent post. kick ass and rah... all the way. yes maam. this is what it is with no apology. sorry all. i dialed down as long as i could thru out this thread. but it just aint me.

THIS

booyah.

i feel good... bum bum bum bum bum, like i knew i should.

so good
so good

thank you ism. your post allowed me to feel more myself than all this gooey gentle and reasoned.

what can i say.

i am bad. let the hate begin. i say in tease. no victim. just play. lighten up

[NaturalHigh]

257. So if it's something that YOU think is really, really important..

then we should all just listen politely and agree no matter how nasty you present it. Got it. Pretty much what I expected.

[nomorenomore08]

276. Why should women have to constantly coddle male feelings? That's what pisses me off, as a man.

You'd think your personal taking offense was more important than, y'know, actual real-world issues like violence and abuse.

[NaturalHigh]

278. I never said they should.

Of course, men shouldn't have to coddle anyone's feelings either. See how that goes both ways?

Oh, then there's also the thing that I don't automatically have to agree with your opinion no matter how obnoxiously you might present it or how right you might believe yourself to be. (Not aimed at you directly btw).

[nomorenomore08]

282. Fair enough. But people always seem to try to make it about *their feelings* instead of what's

really important. That's the part that irritates me.

And if you had as high as a 1 in 3 chance of being abused or assaulted in your life, would you appreciate people whining about "tone" when you tried to raise the issue?

[NaturalHigh]

283. Wait...you mean we're ALLOWED to be irritated?

Are to allowed to express such irritation too?

Goes both ways, you know.

[nomorenomore08]

284. And what the hell do you, as a man, have to be "irritated" about? Some mean feminist

calling you names, at absolute worst? What is that in comparison to being beaten, raped, maybe murdered by someone you love?

[NaturalHigh]

285. What do I have to be irritated about?

You mean in general or just on this board?

As for the rest of your post, of course my irritation pales in comparison to the crimes you've mentioned.

[nomorenomore08]

286. That last line is kind of the whole point I've been trying to make. Thank you for getting it.

And we all have plenty to pissed off about in life - I would never deny that - but it's always good to have a sense of proportion and perspective. And those who prioritize their hurt feelings over deadly serious issues - I don't mean you personally - seem to lack that sense.

[ismnotwasm]

294. No, you didn't get it

Centuries of oppression of half the world *is* pretty important. If you don't feel that's the case, just say so.

[NaturalHigh]

322. Except I didn't say anything like that.

Thanks for coming...

[WatermelonRat]

250. It depends on what your goal is.

If you're mainly arguing for your own sense of satisfaction, it doesn't matter much.

If, however, the goal is to change minds, it can be extremely important. A snide, insulting approach is a great way to get a person to "dig in" or simply avoid any discussion altogether.

[Dirty Socialist]

271. Sort of A Sidenote (Re: Phil Robertson)

Tone and approach were the problems I had with Phil Robertson's remarks. He has a free speech right, but his tone and approach were deplorable.

[seabeyond]

280. personally, i thought his words were horrible. i didnt not even notice tone. and yes,

he has the right. and i have the right to be disgusted.

[TheKentuckian]

287. I don't think it is but some folks completely key on tone and many other weigh it heavily

So since you are dealing with people you will have to accept that you will have to reach them where they are.

There are some folks that I am convinced vote Democrat because of the less visceral tone and can't stand folks like Alan Grayson and are turned off by Big Ed and think of him very much like a Rush, completely disregarding content.

People aren't androids or Vulcans, there is no way to just make them disregard emotional response and for some such things are their entire focus.

[nomorenomore08]

290. On a practical level, you're right. Emotional content can never be simply disregarded.

I was speaking more of the disingenuous type ("Be nicer because you're alienating your friends/allies!&quot who respond to legitimate social critique with complaints about "tone" or people's feelings. In most cases, the person was never much of an ally to begin with and the "tone" argument is just a convenient excuse.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

297. pretty passive agressive post. instead of coming out with what you're really talking about here

you just couch it in a very generalized statement about tone. So what are you talkinga bout?

[nomorenomore08]

300. It was intended to be general, applicable to any number of things, but in the context of recent

threads I suppose it has more to do with the supposed "gender wars" on DU than anything else. Thought it certainly also does pertain to racism, homophobia, et. al. Part of it is I get fed up with people who are comparatively advantaged in life whining about perceived slights - seems so out of proportion to the actual negative effect on their lives.

Also, the "tone argument" isn't so much about people asking for politeness and civility - that in itself isn't so unreasonable - but more a disingenuous way of deflecting away from certain issues, whether because they make the poster uncomfortable or who knows why. Most people who say things like "I'd be an ally if you'd just [fill in the blank]" are never going to be anyone's "allies" no matter what.

[quaker bill]

303. The science is called propoganda

In its most innocent form, it is the way of speaking that is most persuasive. This is how people with the wrong answers continue to win.

There is this confusion out there that somehow liberals can only be effective when wearing pink tutus and being high tea polite. This is not at all true. You can stand tall and be loud, but you need to use this and any other approach carefully.

A general rule of thumb is that one bad story undoes a dozen good ones (more if the bad story is bad enough).

Being correct and on the right side of history are critical, but tone and approach should never be dismissed, as it can make the struggle longer and harder or shorter and easier, you pick.

[Waiting For Everyman]

304. Before this thread wears out, I'd like to add a point.

"Tone" is a word used by the vocal feminist minority on DU. They like to frame the problem they're causing here in terms of tone in order to confuse it with "the tone argument", which is the term for a tactic used against women in real life but not applicable here.

Here we have rules and standards that define what kind of language we can use, and not use. Women don't have to talk nicer to anyone here to get promoted, for example, as it would be in the real world, or to voice their opinions. We all can do what anyone can do here regardless of gender, and tone won't do much to determine that, the rules do. Nicer tone might make someone more likable, but that's about it. So this is not a matter of "the tone argument" as it's used in feminist terms.

Tone really isn't the issue, per se, that most of us are complaining about. We are talking about abusive behavior, which is quite different. I don't need to spell out here what that is because all of us complaining about it know of course, and the vocal minority feminists know good and well because each of the many of us with complaints have told them in detail dozens of times. You could read this thread and see lots of examples right here, or any other thread on this subject, and even some other subjects too. They make it clear that they have no intention of stopping. We merely have to take it, they think.

What's ironic is, that in a very small metaphorical way (and I don't mean in any way to diminish rape by referring to it this way, but to illustrate a relevant point to make it understood better), what they are doing has similarities to rape, which they profess to advocate against. The bad behavior we're talking about, although very much different of course, also is forced on us after repeated and insistent objections are raised, and ruthlessly ignored.

So this is not about "nice words". This is about chronic, long term abusive behavior. And it's done in public because we all (who read this board) have to watch, and be party and victim to it.

Is that a problem? I think so. Does it have to happen? Nope. It's a choice, that a small number of people here make, and decide to do. That's all I have to say. Just want to make clear that tone is not what we're talking about. I went along with the thread "as is" because you included the word "approach" in the title which I took to cover it at first. But late it the thread the victimizers started pressing hard on reinforcing the nice/tone understanding of it, and that is NOT what this is.

The vocal minority feminists very much want to conflate our complaints about their abusive tactics with the tone argument, because then they can dismiss those complaints and persuade others to dismiss them too. They know full well that is what they are doing in trying so hard to confuse the issue. It's just another underhanded tactic in the long parade of them that we've seen.

As several posters said in the thread, the point of this effort on their part is to persuade the DU community to give them a "free pass" on their behavior when it's alerted to juries. They think that DU's standards don't apply to them. Most people don't seem to agree with that so far, fortunately, although some are understandably confused into it. The problem may take care of itself to some degree and become moot after the changes to DU's rules kick in, in a few days. I hope so, but it is still worthwhile understanding the psychological play that's being tried in our midst. Our awareness of it is the key thing that will keep it in check.

[pintobean]

305. Kicking for this post. +1

I hadn't seen you around for a long time, until very recently. It's nice to see you here again.

[Waiting For Everyman]

308. Thanks!

That's right, I was just lurking mostly since the last election, and the Meta shutdown. Good to be back, anong The Visible again.

Btw, some news, a nice birdie told me there was already a swing and a miss, 4-2.

[pintobean]

311. You can expect a lot of that.

The good news is, she very rarely gets a hit.

[In_The_Wind]

306. Well said.

[Waiting For Everyman]

320. That is so cool!

And very true, as well.

[gollygee]

310. You have a funny idea

about what "abusive behavior" and "victim" mean. I don't see any tone from one side that doesn't come just as much from the other. And it certainly isn't abusive behavior to talk about things you don't want talked about, no matter how often it is talked about. Try trashing the threads.

[nomorenomore08]

316. "And it certainly isn't abusive behavior to talk about things you don't want talked about."

That's exactly what I've been trying to say to people, but again, they make it about their personal offense at... I don't know what, honestly... I suppose if a thread makes them way too uncomfortable - though again, why? - they could always trash it.

What really galls me are the complaints about "bullying." I mean, are people of color "bullying" others when they discuss racism? Of course not. But you'll always have overly defensive white people (or men, in this case) who insist on playing the victim.

[seabeyond]

313. "vocal minority feminists" i have not seen one post you have made where you do not insult

vocal minority feminists

obsessed?

[Waiting For Everyman]

319. Me obsessed? You post a ton more than I do.

Last edited Tue Dec 31, 2013, 03:50 AM - Edit history (1)

[Capt. Obvious]

321. You will be

You will be in your glass house should not break throw stones. These stones can speak a little.

[AZCat]

314. I had an interesting, possibly related, event at work a couple of weeks ago.

I work on industrial projects and safety at construction sites is very much a priority. We go through yearly generalized training and specific site training in order to make sure every worker knows how to be safe.

A couple of weeks ago one of our safety people sent out an email to a large group of our workers with a graphic photograph of a jobsite fatality included in the email. The email was intended to shock people into being more safe by showing how the consequences of failing to observe proper procedures can be tragic and fatal. Instead, this purpose became sidelined when a number of employees complained about receiving what they perceived to be unacceptable content in their work email, which became the focus of the discussion rather than jobsite safety.

Was the "tone" of the email appropriate for the message? I'm not sure. Safety is pretty important, but is it important enough to make people nauseous? Or is there a way to have sent the same message without having included that photograph?

[nomorenomore08]

318. That's a valid point. Shock and outrage have their place, but it's best to use them sparingly.

And I must confess that I'm sometimes tempted to really rub people's face in the ugliness of our society and our world - if only for their own edification - but that tactic only has so much usefulness. Often as not, like you said, it simply turns people off to your message.

To go back to the honey and vinegar metaphor, there's nothing wrong with using honey, but you can't use it every time. Sometimes a slightly more forceful approach is necessary, lest people simply pat themselves on the back and think it's someone else's problem.

[MicaelS]

315. Because we're supposed to be allies coming from a similar outlook.

Not a broad spectrum of political views. This is not The Left vs The Right Underground.com. This is the Democratic Underground.com, and were all supposed to be Democrats or Progressives, or something similar. And yet you think you will have and make allies by insulting other DU members?

Do you think your righteous outrage should provide you with a shield against being a nasty person and making nasty comments about other members?

[nomorenomore08]

317. But what if otherwise left-leaning people make arguments that smack of right-wing talking points?

Are we supposed to be too polite to point that out? For instance if someone who identifies as a progressive implies that gender equality has been achieved and feminism is no longer necessary, are others supposed to just smile and nod along, and not make counter-arguments?

Like I said in a post upthread, I don't really need "allies" myself - I'm neither a woman nor a self-identified feminist - but when I see people who try to speak the ugly truth about the world we live in, shouted down and told to be nicer, not only does it irritate me but it makes me wonder what the complainers' own agenda is.

Civility is a good thing, most of the time. It's how we avoid being constantly at each other's throats. But like anything else, it has its limits.