![[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.
( And now we go behind the cut. )
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.
( And now we go behind the cut. )
Tags: