Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
It takes at least two people to argue, debate, discuss, tango, etc. If you want to make your argument heard to another, they're going to have to be willing to listen first. If they're willing to listen, then the other party should at least have the common decency to be civil about it.
Well I think that in those situations it wouldn't apply, because you (hypothetically anyway) have every right to be angry at work or at home.
Not that you don't also have a right to be angry online, but it's not a good approach to take if you're trying to convince someone of something. It's not so much that being emotional makes your argument "invalid", it just makes in unproductive.
You have a right to be angry in those situations, but the complaint is about said anger getting dismissed offhand for a bullshit reason, which does happen.
And I think whether being angry is a good persuasive strategy or not actually depends mainly on how the person you're trying to convince is predisposed to react. A reasoned argument, politely stated, can be dismissed just as easily as an angry, aggressive one, if it is perceived as being weak, pretentious or flippant. There is not a lot you can do under those circumstances; you are not going to persuade such a person either way.
Clearly there are many circumstances in which aggression is unwarranted, rude, and unhelpful to all concerned. I'd argue that there are also some circumstances in which staying calm is actually extremely difficult, and in those circumstances a "tone argument" may be not so much an argument as a way of telling you that you have no right to be offended and should shut up.
I'll play devil's advocate here: Isn't context important?
Most times I've seen the "tone argument" pulled on Tumblr, it goes like this:
Person A posts something.
Person B takes offense to it, and lashes out at Person A.
Person A responds in kind.
Person B points out that Person A is being a dick.
Person A points out that Person B was being a dick first.
Person B essentially says it doesn't matter that they were a dick because they're right.
In a situation like that, isn't the "tone argument" pretty obviously not a valid thing?
Context is of the utmost importance. That's precisely the kind of thing I meant when I said I could see how the concept of the "tone argument" was open to abuse, and obviously that's not a valid argument.
No, it's not a criticism at you or anyone else here. I'm thinking of people who viciously apply insults and vitriol to an argument because they think they have every right to. Which I'm fine with, actually, because that means I get too as well (an arrangement that they, of course, do not agree with.)
The "tone argument" is an specious argumentative tactic parading as a logical fallacy that attempts to supersede the accepted rules of engagement for a debate or argument. This is currently a favorite gambit of the on-line, chaotic 'social justice' movement to preemptively or immediately gain the upper hand in any debate or discussion. It is also one of the more egregious examples of the social justice movement's attempt to wrap one of their many spurious notions in the guise of science and logic.
If this sounds novel, it is of a sort. It was born of a certain necessity due to the advent of online communication. In the real world, there's two styles of argument: the civil debate and the shouting match. The civil debate relies on a figurative talking stick to be passed around, while the shouting match suffers no such formalities. Verbally bombarding someone into acquiescence or silence is the method of this approach. While the civil debate transitions to the internet with little problem, not such the case for the shouting match, especially in the case of internet forums and social networking sites which inherently level the entire playing field for everybody. The participant who chooses to maintain civility has all the time in the world to compose a rational reply, request that the debate be of a civilized manner, or simply ignore their cacaphonous opponent and move on to someone else who will. For the type of person whose only course in a debate is employing overbearing volume and antics to silence their opponent, this leaves them at a critical disadvantage.
So the need arises to handicap the opposition before the discussion has even begun, and what better way to do it than to appeal to their guilt? The premise behind crying "tone argument!" is thus: the people who demand civility are really just trying to silence their poor counterpart. Race, sexuality, gender, and other factors are dragged in to bolster this playing-the-victim ploy. The foundation of this entire concept is based not just on pure speculation or an appeal to emotion (a true fallacy, by the way), far away from anything resembling logic or science -- and then they have the nerve to accuse the one walking away of a logical fallacy!
The minimal requirement for a logical fallacy to be a logical fallacy is a claim to a truth of falsehood must be involved. The "tone argument" never has a chance to arrive at that junction. It's simply a refusal by one party to debate with another. A fallacy is an illogical end to an argument, and a fallacy can't act as an end to something that never began in the first place.
Logic is not a game of win or lose. It's a process used to arrive at a truth or falsehood. If one side of the debate isn't cooperative, that doesn't mean something becomes true or false by forfeit.
Ah. You're right that the tone argument is not itself a fallacy and I stand corrected on that point. It can be employed fallaciously though, which is what I meant, such as "I would agree with you if only you were a bit nicer," which is the classic ad hominem (and almost certainly a lie in any case).
What I would question is your assertion that the concept of the tone argument itself arose as a made-up fallacy seeking to handicap the opposition by way of guilt-tripping. Admittedly I don't know where it originated, but I was certainly aware of it long before I was aware of the "tumblr SJW" phenomenon.
What I would question is your assertion that the concept of the tone argument itself arose as a made-up fallacy seeking to handicap the opposition by way of guilt-tripping. Admittedly I don't know where it originated, but I was certainly aware of it long before I was aware of the "tumblr SJW" phenomenon.
Yep, that's entirely a hypothesis on my part, but I think it's a sound one considering the definition at the very beginning that I went from which is mostly a conspiratorial supposition. (The rest of it is here.)
I think you swapped person A and B (B was offended in my example), but yeah, I've seen it play out that way too.
Really, though, the thing that gets me is...it seems like a lot of bloggers (and I don't mean this as a gross generalization) take the stance that their opinion on [social justice-related topic] is self-evident and as such anyone who expresses disagreement (no matter how minor) is a BIGOT and therefore deserves any abuse they feel like dishing out.
Not everyone acts this way, but it's unfortunately common from what I've seen.
This I do agree with, broadly speaking, but I do sometimes wonder if I'm too forgiving of ignorance. Arrogance can be no less dismissive than malice - see for example Richard Dawkins classing unease around creeps as being equivalent to being offended by somebody chewing gum, apparently not even considering that the former is a perfectly rational response to a genuine physical threat.
OTOH I do agree that a lot of bloggers seem to be way too quick to describe people who offend them as bigots or scum.
Can we all just agree it depends mostly on who's saying it and who it's being said to.
Yes, this was my point.
What I'm objecting to are general statements like 'The "tone argument" is an specious argumentative tactic parading as a logical fallacy that attempts to supersede the accepted rules of engagement for a debate or argument.' If you believe that, then there is no reason not to dismiss every instance of the term as a specious argumentative tactic, even when it's a perfectly valid criticism; the phrase "tone argument" itself then becomes a cue to flip the proverbial bozo bit whenever somebody uses it, which isn't always fair or reasonable.
Yep, that's entirely a hypothesis on my part, but I think it's a sound one considering the definition at the very beginning that I went from which is mostly a conspiratorial supposition. (The rest of it is here.)
To my mind that's a very uncharitable interpretation of that post. It is clearly written with a particular audience in mind, and there are statements there which are obviously overgeneralizations, but there is no reason to suppose that the term did not originate in response to an entirely real problem.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
To my mind that's a very uncharitable interpretation of that post.
I don't see how, especially when you keep in mind that this is simply about someone wanting to toss out decorum and to hell with what everyone else thinks or feels on the matter. The only reason I can think that someone would want to forego civility is to act like a complete asshole. That's it. If someone wants to vent, fine, they need to go take it outside or somewhere else. If they want to communicate with me and the rest of the world, they're going to have to go about it he same way everyone else does. It doesn't get any more egalitarian than that.
To my mind that's a very uncharitable interpretation of that post.
I don't see how, especially when you keep in mind that this is simply about someone wanting to toss out decorum and to hell with what everyone else thinks or feels on the matter. The only reason I can think that someone would want to forego civility is to act like a complete asshole. That's it. If someone wants to vent, fine, they need to go take it outside or somewhere else. If they want to communicate with me and the rest of the world, they're going to have to go about it he same way everyone else does. It doesn't get any more egalitarian than that.
The post suggests foregoing civility in the case of racism. The reasons given, for ease of reference:
No matter how nicely and calmly and reasonably you make your points some will still say you are whining or angry or full of hate. In their heads whites are so wonderful that to say anything bad about them can only come from hatred – no matter how many facts back you up. So a bad tone can get read into your words whether it is there or not.
If it were as simple as having the right tone then racism would have died out ages ago.
So screw tone. No reasonable person is going to fault you for being angry about racism. Those who do, those who expect you to be not only sweet and calm but to value their feelings over your own are closed-minded jerks. You might want to give them a piece of your mind, but do not fool yourself into thinking you can reason with them: they have already placed themselves beyond reason.
(bolding his)
From firsthand experience, I know that people do sometimes read a tone into posts that simply isn't there, so I can broadly agree with the first quoted paragraph. I also feel that, at least for a given definition of racism, the last quoted paragraph should be wholly uncontroversial, in the same way that, say, if somebody calls me a "fucking faggot" I don't think many people would fault me for responding angrily (and fuck those people).
Obviously, that's where it becomes a little more open to interpretation. Where do you draw the line? It sounds clear enough - racism is racism, no ifs no buts - but in practice it's open to judgement how you respond to what other people say. For example, suppose somebody makes an ignorantly racist remark - the person clearly means no harm, but what they've said is nonetheless extremely racist. Are they ignorant because they're innocent but sheltered, or are they ignorant because they're simply too arrogant to consider other peoples' perspectives? If the former, a blunt, frank expression of anger might be the clearest way to convey how offensive they have just been. If the latter, they're a tool anyway and you have every reason to feel angry with them, although doing so is obviously not going to persuade them to change their opinion.
Then you have instances where somebody has merely been a bit insensitive, or where there's genuinely no way they could reasonably have known any better. This is the kind of situation where a polite argument might carry some weight.
Obviously there are people who will respond to any and all of the above with aggression, but that's not a fault with the term "tone argument" itself.
From firsthand experience, I know that people do sometimes read a tone into posts that simply isn't there, so I can broadly agree with the first quoted paragraph. I also feel that, at least for a given definition of racism, the last quoted paragraph should be wholly uncontroversial, in the same way that, say, if somebody calls me a "fucking faggot" I don't think many people would fault me for responding angrily (and fuck those people).
Obviously, that's where it becomes a little more open to interpretation. Where do you draw the line? It sounds clear enough - racism is racism, no ifs no buts - but in practice it's open to judgement how you respond to what other people say. For example, suppose somebody makes an ignorantly racist remark - the person clearly means no harm, but what they've said is nonetheless extremely racist. Are they ignorant because they're innocent but sheltered, or are they ignorant because they're simply too arrogant to consider other peoples' perspectives? If the former, a blunt, frank expression of anger might be the clearest way to convey how offensive they have just been.
What you're arguing for here, though, requires a heavy dose of assumption and that's what will get you into trouble every time.
Both of these situations (reading a tone and the unintentionally insensitive remark) would also be alleviated, and quickly, by simply asking for clarification. If there's one constant about the internet, it's that people will always interpret your words in the worst possible way. As for base ignorance, it's also best to approach that the same way. Most people, if informed what they are doing or saying is rude or offensive, will correct themselves. You and I would want this courtesy for ourselves, we should extend it to others.
If it's found out that the person is willfully ignorant or rude, well, disregard all that shit and go at it.
Obviously there are people who will respond to any and all of the above with aggression, but that's not a fault with the term "tone argument" itself.
For me, I'm always going to at least make the attempt to engage anyone in a civil manner and rightfully expect them to return the courtesy. This alone voids the term entirely. If others give merit to it, that's fine, but me nor you nor anyone else is obliged to cater to it and we're not bad or ignorant or racist or terrible people for doing so (not saying that you would say this, but other folks certainly would.)
What you're arguing for here, though, requires a heavy dose of assumption and that's what will get you into trouble every time.
Both of these situations (reading a tone and the unintentionally insensitive remark) would also be alleviated, and quickly, by simply asking for clarification. If there's one constant about the internet, it's that people will always interpret your words in the worst possible way.
And once they have done so, they may not ask for clarification, and they may not believe you when you try to clarify. Negative impressions are not always easy to shake. There's not a lot you can do in that scenario, but assuming they're at least somewhat rational, it might well help to point out to them that they are attacking your tone rather than paying attention to what you're actually saying, and you might then at least be able to continue your discussion, even though they still won't like you as a person.
As for base ignorance, it's also best to approach that the same way. Most people, if informed what they are doing or saying is rude or offensive, will correct themselves. You and I would want this courtesy for ourselves, we should extend it to others.
If it's found out that the person is willfully ignorant or rude, well, disregard all that shit and go at it.
In most situations I suppose this makes sense.
There are other, potentially more complicated scenarios. For example, what if the person you're talking to is well-meaning, but they're also incredibly patronizing and they have their head too far up their arse to realize this? Surely under those circumstances a little aggression might act as a deterrant?
For me, I'm always going to at least make the attempt to engage anyone in a civil manner and rightfully expect them to return the courtesy. This alone voids the term entirely. If others give merit to it, that's fine, but me nor you nor anyone else is obliged to cater to it and we're not bad or ignorant or racist or terrible people for doing so (not saying that you would say this, but other folks certainly would.)
I don't think it follows that, just because you personally are civil and expect civility, every instance of the term (regardless of who it's directed at) is automatically wrong. In the post you quoted to me above, you condemn the term itself, and therefore any and all uses of it. This is what I am objecting to, because I'm not convinced that criticism holds in all cases. There are circumstances in which it is entirely reasonable to be angry and to express your anger. There are also circumstances in which anger might well be suboptimal in terms of persuading the person it's directed at, but nonetheless understandable since not everybody has the patience and temper of a saint.
And I still feel that some provocative behaviours should be discouraged, and that anger is an effective way to discourage them. Some people are not interested in listening to reason, and have forfeited their right to respect.
And of course, even if somebody is absolutely unreachable, is entirely content in their racism and has no intention of even trying to understand your argument, you might nonetheless be able to convince other people who read the disagreement.
I am an otherclass, kinda like otherkin but I was born as a different socioeconomic class than I am.
Instead of being a working class latino male, I identify as a white member of the liberal academic upper class. So you must treat me as if I have tenure, a library full of books I never read, like I belong in an Edward Albee play (I’ll let you guess which one) and as if I were fluent in Latin and Greek
You can see it plainly in this picture. Even though I have no money or power you must treat me as such or else I will complain about my oppression on the internet.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
We'll, I hope people don't mind seeing Homestuck fan-fiction passing through their dash, 'cause between reposting an old (well, month old) fic and a quickly writing a new one, I got two followers.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
There are other, potentially more complicated scenarios. For example, what if the person you're talking to is well-meaning, but they're also incredibly patronizing and they have their head too far up their arse to realize this? Surely under those circumstances a little aggression might act as a deterrant?
Yes, there are some things that are well beyond the scope of a polite correction or reprimand, such as people talking or behaving in such a manner that there's simply no excuse for.
I don't think it follows that, just because you personally are civil and expect civility, every instance of the term (regardless of who it's directed at) is automatically wrong. In the post you quoted to me above, you condemn the term itself, and therefore any and all uses of it. This is what I am objecting to, because I'm not convinced that criticism holds in all cases. There are circumstances in which it is entirely reasonable to be angry and to express your anger. There are also circumstances in which anger might well be suboptimal in terms of persuading the person it's directed at, but nonetheless understandable since not everybody has the patience and temper of a saint.
Certainly there's occasions where anger is justified, but projecting that at people is what I have a problem with. One of the main reasons I dismiss the concept of the "tone argument" is people feel it gives them license to be a complete asshole for any reason they see fit, all because they see themselves fitting a criteria that allows such behavior and the recipient of their ire fitting the criteria of someone who deserves it. There is nothing about this that is conducive to problem solving and resolution, it's simply a gambit made by one party to verbally assault another.
@ Corporal Forsythe: If there is no circumstance in which one party is justified in directing anger at another, deserving party, I can't see the concept of the tone argument being justifiable.
Perhaps it's a function of societies which police behaviour on the basis of shaming the guilty rather than upholding personal honour.
@ Corporal Forsythe: If there is no circumstance in which one party is justified in directing anger at another, deserving party, I can't see the concept of the tone argument being justifiable.
Perhaps it's a function of societies which police behaviour on the basis of shaming the guilty rather than upholding personal honour.
Well, regarding that, I think it needs to be pointed out that probably the only place where the "tone argument" gets deployed or mentioned is on the internet. Imagine if someone started raving at you like that in real life, I don't think you'd even get the chance to tell them to calm down.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Eh...
I got one follower off the the Lackadaisy comic, I actually got THREE from my Daverezi fics.
Oddly enough, even though I got tons of reblogs and likes of this a quite a few from my Daverezi one, no one has decided to follow me on the promise of more sprite edits.
I did a dum8 edit of a gif from 8eetlejuice and that thing got like 200-something notes and I didn't think I'd get any (aside from may8e a couple likes from the followers I have who like a lot of my posts).
And I gained like 20 followers from my giveaway, lol. I just hope they stay after the giveaway. (Which only has like 40 notes or something so how the heck did I get that many followers from it?)
It's not even your usual spam site; the only thing particularly odd about it is that it seems to be run by just one guy. And people actually follow this guy.
I had some "get a flat stomach" "want legs like these?" one following me 8ut it got deleted today.
Anyway yeah I'm trying my 8est to avoid the SJW thing too since wow I just want to roleplay Vriska not "collect my folk" or whatever and I think the only things I do that could 8e construed as "offensive" are either things that aren't actually offensive to anyone who isn't SUPEREXTREME (such as mentioning that I had a ham8urger or something) or in-character-as-Vriska things which is just me playing a character. And if someone thinks I'd actually 8ully someone in a wheelchair or throw someone off a cliff then wow just wow.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Well, regarding that, I think it needs to be pointed out that probably the only place where the "tone argument" gets deployed or mentioned is on the internet. Imagine if someone started raving at you like that in real life, I don't think you'd even get the chance to tell them to calm down.
Mentioned? You're probably right, I haven't ever heard the phrase "tone argument" used IRL and as far as I'm aware it's a term that originated on the Internet.
Deployed? Certainly not, it's extremely common IRL. If I believed it was only applicable the way it's used on tumblr, which I already conceded was obviously invalid, I wouldn't bother to defend it.
But in a real life argument, particularly a heated one, people tend to be less wordy, and they also tend to talk across one another and even shout one another down. In my experience it is not at all unusual, when a man and a woman are to all appearances equally angry with one another, for the man to attempt to dismiss the woman's complaints as unreasonable on the basis that she's "shrill" or "strident" or "nagging". These pejoratives have no masculine equivalent, so he can employ them under the illusion that he's not being hypocritical in doing so. I don't know that I've ever seen the situation reversed.
That's the kind of situation in which I'd say the objection to the use of tone arguments has some validity, since it's a sexist use of language which enables men to dismiss women's complaints as invalid, just because.
But in a real life argument, particularly a heated one, people tend to be less wordy, and they also tend to talk across one another and even shout one another down. In my experience it is not at all unusual, when a man and a woman are to all appearances equally angry with one another, for the man to attempt to dismiss the woman's complaints as unreasonable on the basis that she's "shrill" or "strident" or "nagging". These pejoratives have no masculine equivalent, so he can employ them under the illusion that he's not being hypocritical in doing so. I don't know that I've ever seen the situation reversed.
I have, in my own family growing up. Both my father and my brother had it in their minds that the way to win any and all arguments was upping the decibel level and when that doesn't work, violence. Between both of those two, I've seen my mother stand back and watch them rant and rave like a 3 year old having a temper tantrum and she told them that they need to calm down. Of course, they never did (the police having to get involved at least once) and I saw my old man lose all control and fall on the floor wailing and screaming like something catastrophic happened (Mom saved money so she could take us to visit her hometown, he wanted to take that money and blow it on a Vegas trip.) So no, I don't think it's a sex/race/etc thing at all.
It's not even your usual spam site; the only thing particularly odd about it is that it seems to be run by just one guy. And people actually follow this guy.
Comments
You have a right to be angry in those situations, but the complaint is about said anger getting dismissed offhand for a bullshit reason, which does happen.
And I think whether being angry is a good persuasive strategy or not actually depends mainly on how the person you're trying to convince is predisposed to react. A reasoned argument, politely stated, can be dismissed just as easily as an angry, aggressive one, if it is perceived as being weak, pretentious or flippant. There is not a lot you can do under those circumstances; you are not going to persuade such a person either way.
Clearly there are many circumstances in which aggression is unwarranted, rude, and unhelpful to all concerned. I'd argue that there are also some circumstances in which staying calm is actually extremely difficult, and in those circumstances a "tone argument" may be not so much an argument as a way of telling you that you have no right to be offended and should shut up. Context is of the utmost importance. That's precisely the kind of thing I meant when I said I could see how the concept of the "tone argument" was open to abuse, and obviously that's not a valid argument.
I see. Alright, then.
Ah. You're right that the tone argument is not itself a fallacy and I stand corrected on that point. It can be employed fallaciously though, which is what I meant, such as "I would agree with you if only you were a bit nicer," which is the classic ad hominem (and almost certainly a lie in any case).
What I would question is your assertion that the concept of the tone argument itself arose as a made-up fallacy seeking to handicap the opposition by way of guilt-tripping. Admittedly I don't know where it originated, but I was certainly aware of it long before I was aware of the "tumblr SJW" phenomenon.
Can we all just agree it depends mostly on who's saying it and who it's being said to.
OTOH I do agree that a lot of bloggers seem to be way too quick to describe people who offend them as bigots or scum. Yes, this was my point.
What I'm objecting to are general statements like 'The "tone argument" is an specious argumentative tactic parading as a logical fallacy that attempts to supersede the accepted rules of engagement for a debate or argument.' If you believe that, then there is no reason not to dismiss every instance of the term as a specious argumentative tactic, even when it's a perfectly valid criticism; the phrase "tone argument" itself then becomes a cue to flip the proverbial bozo bit whenever somebody uses it, which isn't always fair or reasonable.
To my mind that's a very uncharitable interpretation of that post. It is clearly written with a particular audience in mind, and there are statements there which are obviously overgeneralizations, but there is no reason to suppose that the term did not originate in response to an entirely real problem.
oooh ooooh!
From firsthand experience, I know that people do sometimes read a tone into posts that simply isn't there, so I can broadly agree with the first quoted paragraph. I also feel that, at least for a given definition of racism, the last quoted paragraph should be wholly uncontroversial, in the same way that, say, if somebody calls me a "fucking faggot" I don't think many people would fault me for responding angrily (and fuck those people).
Obviously, that's where it becomes a little more open to interpretation. Where do you draw the line? It sounds clear enough - racism is racism, no ifs no buts - but in practice it's open to judgement how you respond to what other people say. For example, suppose somebody makes an ignorantly racist remark - the person clearly means no harm, but what they've said is nonetheless extremely racist. Are they ignorant because they're innocent but sheltered, or are they ignorant because they're simply too arrogant to consider other peoples' perspectives? If the former, a blunt, frank expression of anger might be the clearest way to convey how offensive they have just been. If the latter, they're a tool anyway and you have every reason to feel angry with them, although doing so is obviously not going to persuade them to change their opinion.
Then you have instances where somebody has merely been a bit insensitive, or where there's genuinely no way they could reasonably have known any better. This is the kind of situation where a polite argument might carry some weight.
Obviously there are people who will respond to any and all of the above with aggression, but that's not a fault with the term "tone argument" itself.
Both of these situations (reading a tone and the unintentionally insensitive remark) would also be alleviated, and quickly, by simply asking for clarification. If there's one constant about the internet, it's that people will always interpret your words in the worst possible way. As for base ignorance, it's also best to approach that the same way. Most people, if informed what they are doing or saying is rude or offensive, will correct themselves. You and I would want this courtesy for ourselves, we should extend it to others.
There are other, potentially more complicated scenarios. For example, what if the person you're talking to is well-meaning, but they're also incredibly patronizing and they have their head too far up their arse to realize this? Surely under those circumstances a little aggression might act as a deterrant? I don't think it follows that, just because you personally are civil and expect civility, every instance of the term (regardless of who it's directed at) is automatically wrong. In the post you quoted to me above, you condemn the term itself, and therefore any and all uses of it. This is what I am objecting to, because I'm not convinced that criticism holds in all cases. There are circumstances in which it is entirely reasonable to be angry and to express your anger. There are also circumstances in which anger might well be suboptimal in terms of persuading the person it's directed at, but nonetheless understandable since not everybody has the patience and temper of a saint.
And I still feel that some provocative behaviours should be discouraged, and that anger is an effective way to discourage them. Some people are not interested in listening to reason, and have forfeited their right to respect.
And of course, even if somebody is absolutely unreachable, is entirely content in their racism and has no intention of even trying to understand your argument, you might nonetheless be able to convince other people who read the disagreement.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Perhaps it's a function of societies which police behaviour on the basis of shaming the guilty rather than upholding personal honour.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
And I gained like 20 followers from my giveaway, lol. I just hope they stay after the giveaway. (Which only has like 40 notes or something so how the heck did I get that many followers from it?)
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
5 different tumblrs (similar to this one) following me, all of them vaguely devoted to fitness, most of them with identical posts, and all of them linking back to this muscle-obsessed website in some way or form.
It's not even your usual spam site; the only thing particularly odd about it is that it seems to be run by just one guy. And people actually follow this guy.
It's creepy as all get out.
Anyway yeah I'm trying my 8est to avoid the SJW thing too since wow I just want to roleplay Vriska not "collect my folk" or whatever and I think the only things I do that could 8e construed as "offensive" are either things that aren't actually offensive to anyone who isn't SUPEREXTREME (such as mentioning that I had a ham8urger or something) or in-character-as-Vriska things which is just me playing a character. And if someone thinks I'd actually 8ully someone in a wheelchair or throw someone off a cliff then wow just wow.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
I've seen two posts complaining about how everybody and their momma's doing it, but I haven't heard anything about it before or since.
Bonus if it's out of nowhere.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Saw it mentioned, didn't care about it.
Also I have become tumblr famous. I'm scared.
Mentioned? You're probably right, I haven't ever heard the phrase "tone argument" used IRL and as far as I'm aware it's a term that originated on the Internet.
Deployed? Certainly not, it's extremely common IRL. If I believed it was only applicable the way it's used on tumblr, which I already conceded was obviously invalid, I wouldn't bother to defend it.
But in a real life argument, particularly a heated one, people tend to be less wordy, and they also tend to talk across one another and even shout one another down. In my experience it is not at all unusual, when a man and a woman are to all appearances equally angry with one another, for the man to attempt to dismiss the woman's complaints as unreasonable on the basis that she's "shrill" or "strident" or "nagging". These pejoratives have no masculine equivalent, so he can employ them under the illusion that he's not being hypocritical in doing so. I don't know that I've ever seen the situation reversed.
That's the kind of situation in which I'd say the objection to the use of tone arguments has some validity, since it's a sexist use of language which enables men to dismiss women's complaints as invalid, just because.