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 AM GETTING ANGRY JUST LOOKING AT THAT GOD-AWFUL PICTURE!
One of my schools actually had ceilings that high. The area it was in was semi-rural when it was built in the '60s, so they cheaped out and skipped drop ceilings in favor of just hanging the light fixtures from the rafters, like you'd find in a big-box store.
That said, this doesn't excuse the poor art in that picture. :P
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'm glad she added that parenthetical, 'cause for a moment I almost found myself agreeing with a genderbitch post
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
Not regularly, but...
Fuck it, I'll just say it.
At this point my reaction to the introduction of any trans* character is "Don't fuck it up."
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 think I kinda get the whole "I'm not a social justice blogger!" thing now
Because I'm the closest this forum has to an SJ blogger
But it's not that I'm trying to be that way; I'm just saying how I actually feel about stuff
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
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
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'm not sure whether I should feel insulted by that or not
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
SJ blogger covers a lot of ground the same way "Brony" covers a lot of ground.
Brony typically means just "fan of MLP:FiM that's outside the traget demographic", but people often just take it to mean "Person who masturbates to pony Murder-fics"
SJ blogger should just mean "Person who blogs about social justice issues", but because there's this very apparent dark side, your average blogger gets painted with the same wide brush that covers "insane check your privileges" person.
^^^ I don't have a blog, but I do argue when people are wrong on the internet! (That xkcd used to be my wallpaper)
^^ Insularity, perhaps. Something that afflicts most of the weirder or more niche aspects of cyberculture.
To some extent I think there's a cultural divide, between the one attitude which sees no problematic element as too trivial to analyze or take note of, and the other attitude which sees analyzing minor details as a waste of time. Social justice bloggers tend to be the former from what I've seen; it doesn't necessarily mean they are actually breaking out in hives or calling for book-burnings and witch-hunts over every single thing they complain about.
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
It's interesting; a lot of the issues that fall under this "social justice" umbrella are things I feel strongly about, but I'm not very vocal about them. I get the feeling this results in people not associating me with such issues to the extent that I associate myself with such issues.
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
But I don't like beating people over the head with things they already understand and just disagree with.
Same here.
I also feel like I'm not properly educated enough to defend my opinions to other people, especially since so many of them (like "people deserve equal treatment regardless of gender or orientation") seem self-evident to me.
I think it's important to understand that when people here express disagreement with SJBs they are referring to the crazy kind. Not (for instance) the people who point out racism in the modeling industry, just to give an example I saw on my own dashboard earlier.
I also feel like I'm not properly educated enough to defend my opinions to other people, especially since so many of them (like "people deserve equal treatment regardless of gender or orientation") seem self-evident to me.
That too, but I tend to assume most people are more informed than I am about most issues anyway, so by that reckoning I should never say anything about anything ever.
I think it's important to understand that when people here express disagreement with SJBs they are referring to the crazy kind. Not (for instance) the people who point out racism in the modeling industry, just to give an example I saw on my own dashboard earlier.
Yes, I know I made that mistake in the Trash Heap a while back, when I assumed the phrase "safe spaces" was intended the way it's used IRL.
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
That too, but I tend to assume most people are more informed than I am about most issues anyway, so by that reckoning I should never say anything about anything ever.
Honestly, I think that is a real problem for me at times.
The main reason I tend to be so laconic in my internet posting is that I'm intensely afraid I'll make a fool of myself if I say anything at all in-depth, because someone will invariably be there to point out I'm wrong.
This sounds kinda delusional now that I'm stating it outright. >_<
It's interesting; a lot of the issues that fall under this "social justice" umbrella are things I feel strongly about, but I'm not very vocal about them. I get the feeling this results in people not associating me with such issues to the extent that I associate myself with such issues.
Well, what sets you apart from the SJW is you're not immediately adversarial, and willing to discuss it in a civilized manner. What's sad is the SJW already have a defense against that very notion, it's what they call the "tone argument."
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
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'm not entirely convinced it's not a troll, but either way it made me laugh.
Honestly, I think that is a real problem for me at times.
The main reason I tend to be so laconic in my internet posting is that I'm intensely afraid I'll make a fool of myself if I say anything at all in-depth, because someone will invariably be there to point out I'm wrong.
This sounds kinda delusional now that I'm stating it outright. >_<
I don't know if that's delusional or not, though you certainly seem smart and pretty knowledgable to me.
I do in fact make posts that I later regret all the time, but that somehow hasn't stopped me making them.
It's interesting; a lot of the issues that fall under this "social justice" umbrella are things I feel strongly about, but I'm not very vocal about them. I get the feeling this results in people not associating me with such issues to the extent that I associate myself with such issues.
Well, what sets you apart from the SJW is you're not immediately adversarial, and willing to discuss it in a civilized manner. What's sad is the SJW already have a defense against that very notion, it's what they call the "tone argument."
See this would be a case in point where I guess I'm probably the kind of person being criticized here. Because while I can see how the concept of a "tone argument" could be easily abused, the accusation is not intrinsically invalid.
AFAIK it originated in Internet feminist circles in response to the (disturbingly common) tendency to accuse women employing any tone other than sunshine and sweetness of being "strident". This is a term which I have indeed seen applied to women on a number of occasions, and never to men. That's the practice I understand "tone argument" to describe.
It is fallacious, being a form of ad hominem fallacy, and it's also not in any way polite or reasonable because there really are circumstances in which anger is perfectly justified, and in which anything less will not be taken very seriously anyway.
As I see it there is a world of difference between "tone argument" and legitimately stupid things like, for example, that post up there taking offence at "Niger".
A tone argument could, for example, be made in a workplace disagreement, or a domestic one.
The other thing I'd say to that is that the tone doesn't actually have anything to do with the content of the argument being made. In some contexts, e.g. in formal debate, an angry tone might be a breech of debate etiquette, but it doesn't make the argument itself logically invalid.
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 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'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?
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
See this would be a case in point where I guess I'm probably the kind of person being criticized here. Because while I can see how the concept of a "tone argument" could be easily abused, the accusation is not intrinsically invalid.
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.)
It is fallacious, being a form of ad hominem fallacy, and it's also not in any way polite or reasonable because there really are circumstances in which anger is perfectly justified,
A few weeks ago I wrote up something I plan to upload to my personal knowledge site regarding this, I'm going to re-post it here. Stand by for :words:
From the source:
The tone argument is where you object to someone else’s argument based on its tone: it is too angry, too hateful, not calm enough, not nice enough, etc. It is a logical fallacy because none of those things has anything to do with whether the truth was spoken. It is used to derail and silence.
The privileged use it against the marginalized. This post looks at one case of that: white racists in America using it against blacks when talking about racism.
The whites who use it have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say – no matter what your tone. The tone thing is just to shut you up and dismiss you as an unreasonable person. What you said made them feel uncomfortable and tone is an excuse not to deal with it seriously.
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.
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?
I think the situation described here is more like
Person A: Offended Person B: Why you offended, bro Person A: INSULTS Person B: Why you insults Person A: FUCK YOU TONE ARGUMENT
I've seen this happen, not in so many words, obviously. I don't see it much, mind you, but I deliberately avoid hot-button issues on tumblr, so I assume people who don't would probably see it more.
Also as a matter of course, if you pull the "It doesn't matter that I'm an asshole because I'm right" card, no one is going to agree with you, and even if they do, they'll never admit to it.
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 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.
Also it's always bothered me that a lot of these people seem to assume that anyone arguing against them is, by necessity, A) White, B) Male, C) Straight, and D) Cisgendered.*
It's pretty weird to assume that anyone in any of those categories is bigoted by default, and even weirder to assume by proxy that people in any kind of minority can't also be bigoted.
*I fit the former two, but not the latter two, for any of you who happen to care.
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.
Comments
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
tumblr.avi
But maybe I'm too timid, for better or worse.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^^ Insularity, perhaps. Something that afflicts most of the weirder or more niche aspects of cyberculture.
To some extent I think there's a cultural divide, between the one attitude which sees no problematic element as too trivial to analyze or take note of, and the other attitude which sees analyzing minor details as a waste of time. Social justice bloggers tend to be the former from what I've seen; it doesn't necessarily mean they are actually breaking out in hives or calling for book-burnings and witch-hunts over every single thing they complain about.
It's interesting; a lot of the issues that fall under this "social justice" umbrella are things I feel strongly about, but I'm not very vocal about them. I get the feeling this results in people not associating me with such issues to the extent that I associate myself with such issues.
Plus, it makes sense: Clan Smoke Jaguar is/was a Crusader Clan.
But I don't like beating people over the head with things they already understand and just disagree with.
I also feel like I'm not properly educated enough to defend my opinions to other people, especially since so many of them (like "people deserve equal treatment regardless of gender or orientation") seem self-evident to me.
I think it's important to understand that when people here express disagreement with SJBs they are referring to the crazy kind. Not (for instance) the people who point out racism in the modeling industry, just to give an example I saw on my own dashboard earlier.
That too, but I tend to assume most people are more informed than I am about most issues anyway, so by that reckoning I should never say anything about anything ever.
Yes, I know I made that mistake in the Trash Heap a while back, when I assumed the phrase "safe spaces" was intended the way it's used IRL.
The main reason I tend to be so laconic in my internet posting is that I'm intensely afraid I'll make a fool of myself if I say anything at all in-depth, because someone will invariably be there to point out I'm wrong.
This sounds kinda delusional now that I'm stating it outright. >_<
Just when Tumblr couldn't get crazier it does.
Simultaneously failing at geography, basic sensitivity, and spelling.
That's impressive.
I don't know if that's delusional or not, though you certainly seem smart and pretty knowledgable to me.
I do in fact make posts that I later regret all the time, but that somehow hasn't stopped me making them.
See this would be a case in point where I guess I'm probably the kind of person being criticized here. Because while I can see how the concept of a "tone argument" could be easily abused, the accusation is not intrinsically invalid.
AFAIK it originated in Internet feminist circles in response to the (disturbingly common) tendency to accuse women employing any tone other than sunshine and sweetness of being "strident". This is a term which I have indeed seen applied to women on a number of occasions, and never to men. That's the practice I understand "tone argument" to describe.
It is fallacious, being a form of ad hominem fallacy, and it's also not in any way polite or reasonable because there really are circumstances in which anger is perfectly justified, and in which anything less will not be taken very seriously anyway.
As I see it there is a world of difference between "tone argument" and legitimately stupid things like, for example, that post up there taking offence at "Niger".
Thing is, if you're going to have a formal debate, you cannot be angry, upset, or anything else.
Like, it's just a basic rule of formal discussions.
If you can't do it toneless, you're not having a debate, you're just arguing and are not going to convince anyone of anything.
As a side note this is why I don't really *do* debating anymore.
A tone argument could, for example, be made in a workplace disagreement, or a domestic one.
The other thing I'd say to that is that the tone doesn't actually have anything to do with the content of the argument being made. In some contexts, e.g. in formal debate, an angry tone might be a breech of debate etiquette, but it doesn't make the argument itself logically invalid.
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.
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.
I think the situation described here is more like
Person A: Offended
Person B: Why you offended, bro
Person A: INSULTS
Person B: Why you insults
Person A: FUCK YOU TONE ARGUMENT
I've seen this happen, not in so many words, obviously. I don't see it much, mind you, but I deliberately avoid hot-button issues on tumblr, so I assume people who don't would probably see it more.
Also as a matter of course, if you pull the "It doesn't matter that I'm an asshole because I'm right" card, no one is going to agree with you, and even if they do, they'll never admit to it.
Also it's always bothered me that a lot of these people seem to assume that anyone arguing against them is, by necessity, A) White, B) Male, C) Straight, and D) Cisgendered.*
It's pretty weird to assume that anyone in any of those categories is bigoted by default, and even weirder to assume by proxy that people in any kind of minority can't also be bigoted.
*I fit the former two, but not the latter two, for any of you who happen to care.
This is also true in my experience.