Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So why exactly is "tone" or "approach" more important than actual issues that affect us all? [View all]The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
322 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So why exactly is "tone" or "approach" more important than actual issues that affect us all? [View all]
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
OP
And if they don't have a logical, valid reason for their opposition, then there you go...
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#2
Yeahhhhhh, no. Tone -is- important. It's not -more- important (duh), but it is/can be...
Shandris
Dec 2013
#4
I can't speak as to how often tone is used as an excuse; I can only safely speak for...
Shandris
Dec 2013
#39
I did answer. I said, it's one thing to be obnoxious to a particular instance of bigotry
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#52
Well, if you are making it into an SAT question, I cant say for sure EVERYONE who is
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#54
Calling those who disagree with you "obnoxious" is not smart. It just alienates your allies.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#91
what does 48 have to do with anything. a man that is angry at us, pointing the finger at us, again
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#164
brilliant. ignore what is actually posted to you with repeat. what does that do?
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#177
you owuld think wrong. it would be those accused of being angry when they are not. it would being
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#154
your whole post is directed at insulting 'they". that is acceptable though your "tone" is fine?
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#185
the point is your whole post is insults toward a group. you define the group. tone pleasant,
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#195
how did Tone swing Indiana ... ? Am I missing something? Is that the unrelated thing of which you
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2013
#51
all i know is more than not, i am being givin an emotion that i am not feeling and i feel is no
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#163
i prefer people to ask. allowing one an opportunity to clarify. i am not much into assumptions at
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#181
Well said. I think we're actually pretty close in this regard, but my verbiage still...
Shandris
Dec 2013
#187
Exactly who am I "mocking"? And I don't particularly need "allies" seeing as I'm a man.
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#69
Hmmmm. You know, I think you would have better luck making your point if you were nicer.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#82
I am happy with my contribution to the discussion, but thanks for the suggestion.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#263
So, I take it you don't like the tone of the OP's question. And yet your post is quite snarky.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#79
But why take it so personally to begin with? I didn't single anybody out.
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#268
Okay, I was a little overzealous myself. Mainly because I was fed up with what I saw as
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#281
I've actually been watching the Niners-Cardinals game, sort of ducking in and out.
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#292
Well said. I don't care what issue you are trying to further. Tone matters. nt
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#12
i guess if you call a group you have disdain for as generally obnoxious in a pleasant tone,
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#167
Sarcasm can cut both ways tis true but, it is a Tone therefore deserves mention.
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2013
#49
but then tuesday, there is the passive aggressive and could be saying the ugliest, in a passive
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#17
Yes, I understand and the passive/aggessive is the hardest for me to counteract.
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2013
#21
sea, regarding your hides being due to your tone ... Not all of your hides should have happened
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2013
#36
If yr talking about not being able to discuss an issue without being abusive...
Violet_Crumble
Dec 2013
#9
and what about the people in this thread subtly talking about others, assigning them characteristics
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#170
exactly. You are not effective in your argument when you're abusive and you turn people
liberal_at_heart
Dec 2013
#22
ah.... tone. there is a problem with my tone? i did it pleasantly. i merely pointed out tone.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#172
161 171 174. what is in those tones? are they obnoxious? productive? will they get a hide?
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#183
"Sit Down & Shut Up." That's what they always tell us. "Do you want the GOP to win?!!"
blkmusclmachine
Dec 2013
#15
Imagine for a moment everyone on DU behaving that way about their most important issue.
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#19
Not to be pedantic, but those issues were not resolved by being obnoxious on DU
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#25
For starters, you offer a false dilemma. There is a lot in between polite and obnoxious.
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#33
Not that "obscenity" doesn't have its place as well - e.g. "Fuck you you fucking racist asshole!"
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#293
being blunt, to the point, factual, honest, does not equal obnoxious. not everyone
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#175
That person has had a number of posts hidden recently so that situation will probably be resolved
stevenleser
Dec 2013
#42
stoke the fire, attack the duer, create the outrage... again polly. been there. go at it.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#206
we are focused on tone. the words you chose are hostile. all abotu the tone.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#252
I see that it bugs you deeply that you falsely accused someone. nt
Waiting For Everyman
Dec 2013
#253
One of them has more than five hidden posts, yet somehow manages to say afloat.
Vashta Nerada
Dec 2013
#58
a whole post of ugly as you insult others for what you perceive the same? but, that is good, right?
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#204
When seeking allies in a struggle, it's in the seeker's interest not to be a jerk
Orrex
Dec 2013
#103
No one has the power to "set the rules" (except, say, the moderators of a website).
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#267
I can think of one good reason why tone is probably more important at our venue of discussion.
pacalo
Dec 2013
#67
Because if you alienate all your would-be allies, you won't have any left and your cause will fail.
Jester Messiah
Dec 2013
#76
Many times the argument of tone is projected when no such thing has taken place.
boston bean
Dec 2013
#86
Politicians and corps are focused on marketing (ie the 'con') more than real things
on point
Dec 2013
#81
Oh, now that isn't nice. Maybe if you said it in a nicer way, people would listen.
Squinch
Dec 2013
#85
It really was. I hate that person got "used" like that but, it just shows how effective
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2013
#182
I've seen more personal attacks against feminists and a group of feminists on DU
boston bean
Dec 2013
#89
I see a discussion of an issue, where people personally attack, instead of a discussion of the issue
boston bean
Dec 2013
#99
If you would like to continue in calling people liars instead of the discussing issues
boston bean
Dec 2013
#104
When you would like to actually discuss a feminist issue with me, let me know.
boston bean
Dec 2013
#109
I wouldn't call my characterization of the "tone" argument victimization, but a feminist POV.
boston bean
Dec 2013
#127
You are right polly, I got down in the mud with you at the beginning of this thread.
boston bean
Dec 2013
#144
See that's what I wanted to say, but was distracted with all the personal accusations!
polly7
Dec 2013
#135
And why should people who are merely telling the *truth* about the world we live in, be personally
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#273
So she should expect personal attacks, but she is the one with the tone problem?
Squinch
Dec 2013
#307
Diversionary tactic by non-progressives. That's what political correctness is, too.
valerief
Dec 2013
#137
well. i made it thru half the thread. posts seem directed exclusively at dissing hof as they
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#215
and you really ignored what i put in this reply, swinging the conversation in a different direction.
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#226
Can you point me to some threads where you are being discussed and insulted by name on DU? nt
boston bean
Dec 2013
#231
see, and i do not know that is true. i do know that on this thread, your posts were
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#235
honestly, i cannot recall. i would have to read it. i do know, that over the last couple days,
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#241
Sometimes it takes a crowbar, not soft words to separate the true from false
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#248
Why should women have to constantly coddle male feelings? That's what pisses me off, as a man.
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#276
Fair enough. But people always seem to try to make it about *their feelings* instead of what's
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#282
And what the hell do you, as a man, have to be "irritated" about? Some mean feminist
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#284
That last line is kind of the whole point I've been trying to make. Thank you for getting it.
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#286
personally, i thought his words were horrible. i didnt not even notice tone. and yes,
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#280
I don't think it is but some folks completely key on tone and many other weigh it heavily
TheKentuckian
Dec 2013
#287
On a practical level, you're right. Emotional content can never be simply disregarded.
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#290
pretty passive agressive post. instead of coming out with what you're really talking about here
Pretzel_Warrior
Dec 2013
#297
It was intended to be general, applicable to any number of things, but in the context of recent
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#300
"And it certainly isn't abusive behavior to talk about things you don't want talked about."
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#316
"vocal minority feminists" i have not seen one post you have made where you do not insult
seabeyond
Dec 2013
#313
That's a valid point. Shock and outrage have their place, but it's best to use them sparingly.
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#318
But what if otherwise left-leaning people make arguments that smack of right-wing talking points?
nomorenomore08
Dec 2013
#317