![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
AKA How a Midwestern Gal Wised Up And Started Hating the Tone Argument.
First, before I cut for the fact that this is going to get long:
If you are new to the whole thing we call RaceFail, or to discussions of cultural appropriation and racism in fiction, go somewhere else. If me saying "the tone argument" doesn't ring any bells, this is not the post for you. Not because I don't want you here, but because there are many, many more important things for you to read.
(Capsule definition of what I mean by "the tone argument": It's when an argument gets heated and someone says something like: "you'd be so much more effective at arguing your cause if your tone wasn't so angry".)
Read Ann Somerville's timeline and follow some links. Go to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rydra_wong's tagged linksummary posts.
Because the last thing I want to do is derail. Years and debates ago, I learned that "the tone argument" was a bad thing because it derailed serious conversation. And that made sense -- especially with the latest round, since you throw a discussion about language and linguistics and interpersonal psychology into a room of geeks and it's like a cartoon ferret with a disco ball. And this is definitely a spur topic. Which is why I'm putting it here, on my own little piece of siding, rather than stuffing it into a comment in someone else's space, in the middle of a worthier argument.
I've told you who my intended audience isn't -- let me also say who it is. I'm writing this for other people who are in my six-months-ago shoes -- people for whom the "tone argument" feels valid, and who are having trouble realizing why it's so pernicious. And for anyone playing 101 professor who wants some insight into why people like me are being such dingbats.
So I understood why the tone argument was a problem, debate-mechanics-wise. But it still made sense on a gut level, and it wasn't until a few months ago, when the last one before the current go-round started, that I realized why. Then I read a related comment on the main thread over at Tor and was reminded that this might be useful. If you haven't read the context, go to the top and read until you see it. Go on, I'll wait.
See, I'm also a Midwestern white girl. My polite is other people's passive-aggressive.
For example: when someone brings food to something, and I only take one helping, and say "oh, that was great" while not taking seconds? That's how we say "ew" in Midwestern. If I take more and then make sad noises of stomach-about-to-burst while saying "oh, just one more bite, this is wonderful", then I did actually like it. If I ask for the recipe, and then mention it at the next three dinner parties, I really liked it. And so forth. Our compliments are overwrought, and the mere absence of an unadulterated stream of them is an insult.
I may be exaggerating a little, but not as much as you might think if you didn't grow up with it.
The flip side is that when someone is angry enough to swear or yell or the online equivalent, my gut instinct is that they're about ten seconds from putting their fist through someone's face or the wall. That they're so angry that it's gotten through all the wrappers and disclaimers and polite stiff-upper-lips I'd put between my temper and the world.
But, see, what I'd do isn't the point. What my cultural assumptions are isn't the point. My American English accent is close to what used to be the broadcast standard; my vernacular is Midwestern crossed with Ivory Tower; in short, I am the dominant paradigm. By forcing my standards of debate on anyone, I'm flinging my privilege around. I'm walking into an ongoing debate in a different dialect and asking everyone to change to suit me, and if they don't, I insult them for being impolite. (Well, I've known enough to have stopped doing it out loud a while back, but I was still doing it in my head.)
There's no reason they should change their tone for me. I should open my eyes and read and learn to translate emotional dynamics on the fly like I've mostly learned to do in-person when necessary. And if I can't, I should step away until my eyes are fresh.
So, to anyone who tries to use politeness to derail an argument I'm in, even if you're complimenting me? Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on. I'm not being polite so you can feel like you haven't offended anyone. I'm just doing it because that's my comfort zone, and if you don't hear the quiet anger smoldering behind the words, I'll try to learn to spell it out for you. Because it's not about me or my cultural assumptions.
Note: Feel free to link this post anywhere. If comments get out of hand anywhere, I reserve the right to freeze threads. Anonymous comments by folks who don't want to bother with OpenID or anything else are welcome, though picking a handle and signing off with it would be appreciated just to keep the flow of conversation coherent.
First, before I cut for the fact that this is going to get long:
If you are new to the whole thing we call RaceFail, or to discussions of cultural appropriation and racism in fiction, go somewhere else. If me saying "the tone argument" doesn't ring any bells, this is not the post for you. Not because I don't want you here, but because there are many, many more important things for you to read.
(Capsule definition of what I mean by "the tone argument": It's when an argument gets heated and someone says something like: "you'd be so much more effective at arguing your cause if your tone wasn't so angry".)
Read Ann Somerville's timeline and follow some links. Go to
rydra_wong's tagged linksummary posts. Because the last thing I want to do is derail. Years and debates ago, I learned that "the tone argument" was a bad thing because it derailed serious conversation. And that made sense -- especially with the latest round, since you throw a discussion about language and linguistics and interpersonal psychology into a room of geeks and it's like a cartoon ferret with a disco ball. And this is definitely a spur topic. Which is why I'm putting it here, on my own little piece of siding, rather than stuffing it into a comment in someone else's space, in the middle of a worthier argument.
I've told you who my intended audience isn't -- let me also say who it is. I'm writing this for other people who are in my six-months-ago shoes -- people for whom the "tone argument" feels valid, and who are having trouble realizing why it's so pernicious. And for anyone playing 101 professor who wants some insight into why people like me are being such dingbats.
So I understood why the tone argument was a problem, debate-mechanics-wise. But it still made sense on a gut level, and it wasn't until a few months ago, when the last one before the current go-round started, that I realized why. Then I read a related comment on the main thread over at Tor and was reminded that this might be useful. If you haven't read the context, go to the top and read until you see it. Go on, I'll wait.
See, I'm also a Midwestern white girl. My polite is other people's passive-aggressive.
For example: when someone brings food to something, and I only take one helping, and say "oh, that was great" while not taking seconds? That's how we say "ew" in Midwestern. If I take more and then make sad noises of stomach-about-to-burst while saying "oh, just one more bite, this is wonderful", then I did actually like it. If I ask for the recipe, and then mention it at the next three dinner parties, I really liked it. And so forth. Our compliments are overwrought, and the mere absence of an unadulterated stream of them is an insult.
I may be exaggerating a little, but not as much as you might think if you didn't grow up with it.
The flip side is that when someone is angry enough to swear or yell or the online equivalent, my gut instinct is that they're about ten seconds from putting their fist through someone's face or the wall. That they're so angry that it's gotten through all the wrappers and disclaimers and polite stiff-upper-lips I'd put between my temper and the world.
But, see, what I'd do isn't the point. What my cultural assumptions are isn't the point. My American English accent is close to what used to be the broadcast standard; my vernacular is Midwestern crossed with Ivory Tower; in short, I am the dominant paradigm. By forcing my standards of debate on anyone, I'm flinging my privilege around. I'm walking into an ongoing debate in a different dialect and asking everyone to change to suit me, and if they don't, I insult them for being impolite. (Well, I've known enough to have stopped doing it out loud a while back, but I was still doing it in my head.)
There's no reason they should change their tone for me. I should open my eyes and read and learn to translate emotional dynamics on the fly like I've mostly learned to do in-person when necessary. And if I can't, I should step away until my eyes are fresh.
So, to anyone who tries to use politeness to derail an argument I'm in, even if you're complimenting me? Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on. I'm not being polite so you can feel like you haven't offended anyone. I'm just doing it because that's my comfort zone, and if you don't hear the quiet anger smoldering behind the words, I'll try to learn to spell it out for you. Because it's not about me or my cultural assumptions.
Note: Feel free to link this post anywhere. If comments get out of hand anywhere, I reserve the right to freeze threads. Anonymous comments by folks who don't want to bother with OpenID or anything else are welcome, though picking a handle and signing off with it would be appreciated just to keep the flow of conversation coherent.
Tags: