In the interests of clarity, I should state that these are my personal suggestions, not a TBAT mandate.
Popular demand (or at least the odd request) has asked that I put together some polite explanations of why, when it comes to discussing the inequities of our society, certain lines of argument are liable to wind up with both sides feeling savaged and despairing, and non-combatants blinking at the scorched earth and thinking, 'I'm sure there was an interesting conversation to be had about this once?' Such explosions usually spark off when someone with more societal privilege makes a remark that ... well, let's assume good intentions: when someone with more privilege than others puts a well-meaning foot in their mouth and says something that they don't realise people in marginalised groups have heard used to deny their experience and rights before, many times, in many contexts.
Such remarks may or may not be intended to oppress, but they operate in a context where they're at risk of having that consequence no matter what the intent of the speaker. So, in the interests of reducing flame wars, furthering understanding, and giving the oppressed a resource they can use if they want to tell somebody off politely, here are some tips on How Not To Argue.
You read too much into things
To begin with, this is just annoying. On a discussion blog, people discuss things; if you don't want to read that kind of thing, you're in the wrong place. And that's your fault for choosing a place that doesn't suit you, not the place's fault for being what it is. Saying 'You read too much into things' is basically tipping up and saying, 'Hey, everywhere I cast a casual eye should completely change itself to fit in with my personal tastes!' This is not the way to win friends and influence people.
More specifically, 'You read too much into things' is frequently employed to disparage someone's perception. In effect, it's saying, 'If you can see something and I can't, it must be because you're making things up,' which is basically a statement that you're omniscient and the other person is delusional. This is not charming. It's also lazy and disrespectful of other people's time: it dismisses the post or comment someone put effort and thought into writing with a wave of the hand and doesn't actually bother to engage with it. This is tantamount to saying that your most casual and shallow thought outweighs the serious consideration, reflection, education and experience of other people just because you're you and they're them. You are probably not correct in this.
Saying 'I think you're reading too much into this, for reasons X, Y and Z' isn't necessarily offensive, but it's a phrase with bad associations because it so often translates to 'I can't be bothered to think or talk about what you're saying, but I get to dismiss it anyway because I'm so much smarter than you.' This would irritate anyone, but people who experience marginalization get dismissed and disparaged a whole lot and consequently are pretty much up to here with it to begin with. If you disagree with an interpretation, make a case for what you think rather than just throwing a vague insult in its direction.
Not X, just Y
When the subject of bigoted behaviour comes up, here's a common thing to say: 'He's not misogynist/racist/gay-bashing/whatever, because I don't think he hates women/POC/gay people/whatever ... he's just saying things that don't support their rights'(Or she.)
This is a tricky one. Fine distinctions can be important to make, but they can also shift the goalposts.
The basic point is this. If a discussion is about how problematic someone's behaviour is, it's a discussion about the effect they have on others - very often including people taking part in the discussion. To move to an analysis of the person's inner life, especially one that defends them, can feel like changing the subject from the (marginalised) people whose rights they're denying to the (privileged) person's right to the benefit of the doubt. To someone used to having their rights undermined, this can feel very much like being told that a privileged person's right to be assumed a good human being is more important to the speaker than your right to be treated like a human being at all.
It's not always inappropriate to discuss whether someone's hateful, ignorant, silly, or something in between. But when you've seen too many threads get derailed into a semantic wrangle over the precise difference between sexist and misogynist, or something similar, to the detriment of any acknowledgement that the behaviour is bad for its victims no matter what you call it ... you can get a little wary of comments that look like they're straining out gnats and swallowing camels. There's a time and place, and if the discussion is about the problems someone's causing, a split-hair defence of them may not go down well.
That's just a subjective impression, and subjective impressions can be wrong
True. They can indeed. They can also be right; the fact that something could be wrong doesn't mean that it actually is.
Subjective impressions aren't very valuable when trying to determine something definitely measurable: if the glass looks half full to you and someone else thinks it's full of spiders, you can check. But when it comes to how people treat one another, which is what we're talking about when it comes to discrimination and bigotry, the 'subjective' experience of the subject becomes extremely important. If a woman says 'Men often talk down to me' or a man of color says 'White women often clutch their bags when they see me', they can only speak from their own experience--but it's experience of situations that they saw and you didn't, and that they've had a lifetime to get used to.
Some people are irrational and hostile and read oppression into innocent situations. But the majority of people don't like feeling mistrusted and disrespected, and a sensible person doesn't go looking for prejudice. By dismissing someone's experience of discrimination, you are effectively saying that you assume they're a person with no sense. That's not a nice thing to do to anyone, and when you're doing to someone who probably does get dismissed as irrational by bigots because of who they are anyway, it's particularly galling and disrespectful.
You don't have to accept everyone's descriptions of their experience as the absolute truth, but they probably know more about their lives than you do. If you have to rest on the assumption that they're wrong about what it's like to be them, you're treating them rudely, and you're also making yourself look like you can't think of a way to refute them but don't want to admit it. And if you appear to want to refute someone's claims of oppression but haven't got a better reason than that they might be wrong, well, it doesn't make you look well-disposed towards people's rights.
I didn't intend to be offensive, therefore you have no right to take offense
It can be rather startling to find someone reacting angrily or with distress to a remark you thought of as friendly, neutral or just common sense. There's a great temptation to shrug it off as someone being unreasonably touchy and dismiss what they're saying.
Well, take a deep breath, stop a minute, and think about it.
The thing is, nobody knows everything. It's perfectly possible that the reason you think of what you said as common sense is that you happen to have lived in an environment where marginalized people are, well, marginalized. That means their opinions on things don't get heard very much. That's pretty much what marginalization means. An opinion may be deeply insulting to someone, but if they're at the margins, they may not get to challenge it, or at least not where people near the middle will hear them. You may simply not know what the problem with this statement is because this is the first time you've heard that there's a problem. Someone's now telling you new information. If you dismiss it, you're refusing an opportunity to learn.
You're also declaring that what you feel about how you act should trump how someone else feels about how you act - even if the way you act is deeply insulting, upsetting or threatening to them. They will not agree with you about this, nor should they have to. Equality means listening to each other, not just to ourselves.
There's a right way and a wrong way to bring up whether you meant to be offensive.
It's quite reasonable to say 'I didn't intend to come across as saying X, sorry about that; what I really mean is Y.' That's just a clarification; everybody fluffs their words sometimes.
It's fine to say 'I didn't expect this to cause offense and I don't understand why it did; could you please explain so I can understand better?' If someone's very distressed they may not be in the mood to go into detail and it's good manners to respect that, but an honest confession of ignorance is much better than defensiveness. Again, nobody knows everything; we're all born knowing nothing and have to take it from there. If you said something offensive because you didn't happen to have a piece of information, it can feel like you're unfairly being called a bad person - but your best chance to refute that suspicion is to act like a good person in your response and try to open your ears. Generally speaking, people are more likely to base their opinion of you on how you react to being told, 'Hey, that's offensive!' than on whether you said the offensive thing in the first place. See it as a an opportunity.
It's also fine to say, 'I'm sorry to have caused you offense; I didn't intend to' ... as long as you acknowledge that accidentally-caused offense is still legitimate and that 'I didn't mean to' doesn't automatically remove someone's right to feel bad about that thing you said. If you bring up your good intentions as part of an apology, the focus needs to be on the effect you've had, not on the effect you intended, otherwise your apology is more about your feelings than the feelings you've hurt. That isn't an apology at all; it's brandishing intent as a get-out-of-jail-free card, and those only work in Monopoly.
The flip side of this is that if someone says something that strikes you as potentially offensive but you're not sure if they mean it that way or not, it can save everybody headaches if you ask for a clarification before you blast them. Nobody always expresses themselves perfectly, and a clarification can sometimes set things straight very quickly.
The basic principle here is that we are responsible for the consequences of our actions. If we did them in good faith and meant no harm, but they cause harm nonetheless, the best way to preserve that good faith is to try to fix the harm they did. If you react to the news of harm by getting angry and defensive, you're suggesting that your good faith was conditional on nobody questioning you, which isn't all that good. If you react to the news of harm with concern and respect, your good faith looks a lot better, and then your intentions may be relevant.
Intentions have a place as part of a sincere apology or search for understanding; they have no place as part of a refusal to acknowledge someone else's feelings.
Whoever's most/least angry wins
Sometimes people get frustrated. If you've said something that (however unintentionally) insults them or supports structures that tend to deny their rights, and it's something they've heard many times before from people who want to see them disempowered, there's a fair chance they'll get frustrated with you - especially if you don't listen to their earlier objections respectfully. They may start to sound snappish.
This is not the moment to say, 'But you're so intemperate, you're clearly just being emotional/unpleasant/irrational and I don't have to listen to you.' It's possible to be angry while also making a perfectly rational point - and in fact, if someone's trying to deny you your rights, it's highly probable that you'll be angry while also having a rational objection. The two go together, and thought and feeling are not mutually exclusive.
Dismissing someone's rational objections on the grounds that they sound angry while making them is known as a 'tone argument', and it's both poor logic and poor manners.
On the other hand, it's important not to do a reverse-backflip with the tone argument and start misusing the phrase. If someone says to you, 'Hey, that word you used is a racial slur,' or 'Your language is creeping me out,' that's not the time to say 'Tone argument! Aha, I don't have to listen to you!' A tone argument is bad logic when it's used to dismiss a logical point. When it's used to dismiss a point about how you are affecting the people in this conversation, tone is relevant and 'tone argument' is a misuse of the phrase. This doesn't mean you have to give way to anyone who says they feel they want you to, but it doesn't mean they're using a tone argument either.
When you're talking about a general issue, tone does not affect the rightness or wrongness of your stance. When you're talking about how you're treating someone, tone is part of the subject under discussion. Avoiding tone arguments is good when it keeps the debate relevant; it's not good when it gets used as a license not to care about the feelings of others. Basically, don't use 'You're using a tone argument' as a tone argument.
This can be a fine line, and disagreements about borderline use can create a disaster area. But the fundamental principle is this: one should try to respect other people's feelings. If someone feels angry, it doesn't necessarily mean their point is unreasonable. If someone is uncomfortable with your demeanour, it doesn't necessarily mean they're employing a tone argument. In both cases, try to consider the content of what they're saying rather than seizing on their feelings as an excuse to ignore the point they're trying to make.
If someone says, 'You're using a tone argument to dismiss my point and I want you to address the actual content of what I'm saying,' you probably need to listen to them more. If someone says, 'You're making me uncomfortable and I'd like you to adjust your tone so I can continue this discussion,' you should listen to that too.
The basic rule is this: whether you're hearing or expressing anger, don't use people's feelings against them.
Even if you're not talking about me, you must be talking about me
A common way to get yourself into hot water is to jump into a conversation about the behaviour of prejudiced members of a group to which you belong, or how your group gets a better deal in society than some other group, with an angry assertion that you may be a member of this group but you're not a bigot, and it's offensive to assume that you are. (Some people do this in conversations where nobody knew they were following it, or even who they were, which is extra awkward.)
The basic principle here is that saying men benefit from sexism, white people from racism, straight people from homophobia and so on is not a blanket condemnation of the beneficiaries. We can none of us help how we're born, and the fact that society is unfair in your favour doesn't make you a bad person. Jumping in to deny your prejudice is denying an accusation that nobody made.
It may, however, get people turning around and saying that yes, you are prejudiced. While this may feel like a confirmation that you were right to defend yourself, in fact it's a reaction to your jumping in, for a simple reason: you've changed the subject from the problems of the marginalised group to the offended feelings of a member of the privileged group. If women are talking about the problems of sexism, it's not the moment to demand they soothe the feelings of a man who is, in any event, misinterpreting what they're saying. If people of colour are talking about racism, they don't want to have to start placating a white person. And so on. Being a member of a marginalised group means that you get squashed into the corner in a lot of places; having a member of the more powerful group jump up and try to change the subject when you're getting a respite from that to talk about your own concerns feels very much like being told, 'You have to occupy the corner in every space, not just most of them. Stop talking about yourselves and talk about me.'
If you're not a bigoted member of the group, then when people are talking about bigots, they're not talking about you. It's therefore not the moment to ask them to start.
But I've done good things in the past!
This is one that often comes up when someone is accused of saying something prejudiced. Hurt by the accusation, they'll produce some proofs of virtue: either they've done some good work for the benefit of the marginalized group in the past, or they're supportive of another marginalized group and hence have some progressive cred.
Well, if that's true, good for you. It's good news. It does not, however, mean that you'll never again say something that's problematic. People are mixed-up creatures: good and bad attitudes jostle away inside us. Even if our attitudes are pure - and nobody's perfect - all of us put the odd foot in our mouths. Having done something good in the past doesn't mean you couldn't possibly ever do something awkward in the future. And if you use support of people's rights as an excuse not to listen to people saying, 'Hey, that argument you're making undermines our rights,' ... well, sorry, but you have (temporarily at least) changed sides.
Egalitarianism is a way of walking, not a destination. If you've walked the walk in the past, all honor to you, but you need to keep walking it in the here and now.
The Human Shield Defence
Otherwise known as "I can't be sexist, I have female relations." Or perhaps female friends, or gay relations/friends, POC relations/friends, and so on - though at least on this website, the citation of female relations to defend against an accusation of sexist behavior seems to be the commonest.
The simplest answer to this is: human being not being parthenogenetic, every sexist has female relations. If female family members or acquaintances actually prevented a man from ever expressing an opinion that supported sexist structures, there would be no sexism. The same applies to every other marginalized group. It's a big world, and we all know different people. But on the Internet, all people have to go on is what you say, and if what you say is problematic, it's problematic.
Citing acquaintances from a marginalized group to prove you couldn't be undermining it tends to provoke people even further. The reason is simple: by invoking such people as if they were talismans against accusations, you come across as using them as tokens rather than recognizing them as human beings. This may not be what you're doing, but the problem is, we only have your word that they actually agree with your opinions. For all anyone on the Internet knows, your acquaintances of color may think you're a racist, your sisters may think you're a sexist, your gay uncle may think you're a homophobe, and so on. Or they could think you're an ally but be, no offense to them, very stupid people who couldn't tell prejudice if it bit them on the nose; every marginalized group has the occasional dimwit in it. Referring to them as if their very existence indemnified you against prejudice looks like you're failing to recognize that being in a marginalized group doesn't mean you're an automatic education to everyone around you.
The real problem, though, is that it dodges the issue. The problem isn't about your friends and family, it's about that comment you made. Maybe you just phrased something badly, maybe you have hidden problems with discrimination that you aren't aware of, maybe you're a horrible person: the people on the thread don't know. All they have to go on is what you wrote. Moving the conversation to what kind of person you are - which people only have your word to go on anyway - is changing the subject and refusing to address the real point.
Last thread? What last thread?
This is not so much an argument as a form of behavior that undermines good faith.
Say you have an argument with Person B on a particular thread. You appear to have antagonised them, they say you've treated them rudely, they're seriously upset with you. If you then drop out of that thread without resolving the conflict and then pop up in another thread where they're posting as if nothing happened - especially if you start chatting with them as if you two are friends - B is going to feel very frustrated. In effect, you're denying them closure and expecting that to have no consequence on how they should behave towards you: you're showing their feelings no respect and expecting them to still treat you respectfully. At worst it can feel very close to gaslighting, and at best, it feels like taking advantage of the new thread to get out of a conversation that wasn't finished.
If you're going to get into a conflict with someone, you should have the courtesy to resolve it. If you can't resolve it, you should at least post that you'd like to agree to disagree and allow that this may change how they feel towards you. People's memories don't vanish from thread to thread, and acting as if they should will cause a lot of stress.
--Kit Whitfield
__________
The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)
Mmy, that's a good idea. I do want to point out that I thought long and hard about this in the context of the Mormon thread and was quite sure that I didn't just "need to vent" but that my anger was something that needed to be contributed to the conversation whether or not it would be effective against its target. Ray deserved - and I would argue possibly needed - to know exactly how I felt. I managed to get most of that out in the extended metaphor, but not all of it.
Posted by: Literata | Jun 12, 2011 at 08:12 AM
You really hit the nail on the head on this message. I believe we can avoid arguments and live a peaceful life.Whoever's least angry wins all the time
Posted by: allan | Jun 12, 2011 at 09:06 AM
@allan, I'm 90% certain you're a bot, but on the off-chance I'm going to say that I don't think we (as a society) can avoid arguments. We can avoid quarrels, if everyone agrees to argue in good faith and respect the other parties, but as long as there are diverse opinions there will be arguments. Individuals can avoid arguments, but I'm not so sure that works out well in the long run. Contentious topics don't resolve themselves by not getting discussed.
Posted by: Nick Kiddle | Jun 12, 2011 at 09:36 AM
Hmm.
I guess I'm used to usually holding back a bit when I express anger out of awareness that my full-blown anger will be perceived negatively by others, so my standard for normal expression of vehement anger involves pulling punches a bit. This isn't something that's specific to The Slacktiverse--it's a result of negative reactions from people, particularly family, when I don't hold back at all in expressing anger. I thought most people's standard was to hold back a bit so they don't go overboard--maybe I was wrong. In the example I cited, I thought I'd been pretty vehement just by outright stating that the person's husband was abusing her son and she needed to do something about it, since I know my family would consider that a very extreme and rude thing to say. Here is the link, in case anyone wants context.
I want people to be able to nuke in situations like Literata's in the Mormon baptism thread where it would usefully contribute to the conversation, but I don't want it to be okay to jump on people for every little thing like with the MadG/Phoenix situation. However, I obviously haven't done a good job articulating the difference.
Posted by: kisekileia | Jun 12, 2011 at 09:48 AM
Kit - Am I right to guess that by "expertise", you mean that lived experience is often more "useful" than book or internet reading?
If the discussion is about what it's like to be a certain kind of person, then yes. If it's about objective statistics or something equally open to all, no.
--
Part of the oppression of some people is that they have been either prevented from expressing anger or punished for doing so. (Or shamed for doing so.) Expressing anger then becomes a necessary step on the path to "dealing with" with pain and healing.
On the other hand ... I'm just going to be unsympathetic and say this: if someone's taken a great deal of emotional damage and has a vast amount of anger to express, they may need to take it to a therapist rather than dumping it on an Internet discussion. Some kinds of anger are appropriate and proportional to the situation; some kinds are connected to the situation but primarily driven by anger about things that the person you're talking to had no hand in. And in the latter kind of situation, I don't think someone has the right to turn a public conversation into a personal psychodrama.
There's healthy anger and unhealthy anger, and there's also healthy anger put in the wrong direction. People may need the right/opportunity to express anger, but that doesn't mean that everyone's obliged to provide them with that opportunity whenever they want, especially if they're acting it out rather than expressing it in a constructive or healing way.
A conversation should be a positive experience for everyone, or at least for the majority. If one person starts taking their anger out on everyone, I think you can argue that they're exploiting the principle to everyone's detriment, and I don't think people have the right to exploit the good will of others.
I'm all in favour of people healing themselves, but not if they start turning everyone else's stomach in the process. We should try to support and respect, but I don't think we're obliged to re-parent.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Jun 12, 2011 at 10:16 AM
@Kit Whitfield: On the other hand ... I'm just going to be unsympathetic and say this: if someone's taken a great deal of emotional damage and has a vast amount of anger to express, they may need to take it to a therapist rather than dumping it on an Internet discussion.
Yeah, that is definitely the other side of the situation. It would be nice if we could have "I need to vent" rooms (threads?) because we need to articulate our anger in order to deal with it.
I personally struggle with the anger issue because I have always had what some people call "black Irish anger" which is experienced (by me and members of my family) as a physical as much as a psychological thing.
When I feel like that I am afraid both of venting my anger and of not venting it (because if it isn't vented it will eventually explode often hurting the wrong people entirely) so I have tried to develop techniques which will allow me to channel the energy built up by anger and use it positively.
Posted by: Mmy | Jun 12, 2011 at 10:35 AM
Sometimes, though, people appreciate fully why a situation deserves an angry response because of a situation that the person they're angry at had no hand in. The discussion I linked is an example--because of my experiences growing up as someone with unacknowledged ADHD, I understood viscerally that it is abusive to scream at a child for hir ADHD symptoms and simultaneously refuse to have the child assessed for ADHD. I think that anger was appropriate and proportional to the situation, even though it drew heavily on my anger at my mother.
"Appropriate and proportional to the situation" seems to me like a reasonable guideline, albeit one that might need to become a little more specific to be clear to everyone, for expression of anger here. I want to defer to people who have been here longer than me on this, though.
Posted by: kisekileia | Jun 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Mmy: Yeah, that is definitely the other side of the situation. It would be nice if we could have "I need to vent" rooms (threads?) because we need to articulate our anger in order to deal with it.
I've seen such "rooms" on various forums. If two people are getting heated, their "discussion" is moved to the room where they can argue and not derail. But the other side of that is that if you have a forum of say, a hundred people, you notice that the same four or five people are in the venting room all the time, just yelling at each other in all caps and personally ripping each other apart. Which goes back to Kit's point that if you really have that much anger to express, there might be better places and ways to express it than in an online room, especially if you are there every week and it never seems to be getting "better."
Posted by: Ruby | Jun 12, 2011 at 10:47 AM
@Ruby: I suppose it is better for the same four or five people to be yelling at each other in cyberspace than engaging in physical violence in meatspace.
I guess we are back at judicious....or at least realizing that while the occasional rush of anger may be therapeutic (to you) it has a negative impact on everyone else around you.
In my own family we have learned to channel the adrenalin rush of anger into (generally) useful physical activity during which we have long and heated (entirely internal and private) arguments with those we are angry at.
Then, tired from the physical activity and armed with articulate comments from the hours of internal argument we return to the scene of our anger.
And, of course, we also have learned that sometimes therapy is your friend. Even more so, therapy can be a friend to all the people who have been bearing the brunt of your anger.
Posted by: Mmy | Jun 12, 2011 at 10:56 AM
However, I think it is also important to point out that access to therapy is a privilege that not everyone has. Same with the ability to engage in heavy physical activity.
Posted by: kisekileia | Jun 12, 2011 at 11:10 AM
Mmy: I suppose it is better for the same four or five people to be yelling at each other in cyberspace than engaging in physical violence in meatspace.
True, though I'm not sure that's necessarily the choice. Many people who yell (or write) their anger would never dream of getting into a physical confrontation, and others who feel that a physical fight is a good release of energy and aggression aren't into verbal confrontation.
I think, too, there is the question: is venting anger truly venting it, or is it just stoking the fire? (Please note: I am not saying it is always one or the other--I think the answer is different for different people, and maybe different for different people at different times.)
Posted by: Ruby | Jun 12, 2011 at 11:12 AM
I think it is also important to point out that access to therapy is a privilege that not everyone has.
True. I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to be a punching bag for someone just because they can't afford therapy, though. What I really meant was that there's a point beyond which anger can lead people to be unreasonable, and at that point I don't think we should allow them to use freedom of expression as a justification for dumping their anger on other people rather than acknowledging that they have a problem with anger and trying to take responsibility for it. Seeing a therapist is one way of taking responsibility, but I was really using it as a shorthand for 'Seeing and dealing with your issues rather than taking them out on people.'
Especially as anger can become a damaging compulsion in itself. If you're suffering from depression or something else that saps your energy, anger can pump you up. You can get a temporary burst of adrenaline that makes you feel normal and functional again and gives you a much-needed relief from the low. And if that's how it works for you, you can end up self-medicating with anger, the same as someone else might self-medicate with sex or alcohol or self-harm.
Which means that subconsciously you're probably going to be looking for things to get angry at because they're an opportunity to get that burst of energy. And if that's what you need to feel okay, you're probably not going to have much space to care about whether you're damaging other people.
Which doesn't mean that there's never a time for anger, but I think anger can end up stoking the fire, especially when it provokes an angry response. I'm no expert, but I've read that treatments like primal scream therapy or pillow punching actually don't work very well, because rather than releasing anger they simply get you practicing it, and you're likely to do better working on ways of calming yourself down.
For my money, I'd say that venting isn't what does the healing. Asserting oneself is: identifying and protecting one's boundaries, expressing one's opinions, saying 'I hold to my truth' - these are all things that can help someone to value themself. But one can vent without doing those things appropriately, and one can assert oneself without extreme aggression.
And no one has to do that. It's not necessarily my place or anyone's to decide what's in someone's psychological interests. But it does mean there are times when it may be fair to call shenanigans on a claim that venting is helping someone heal.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Jun 12, 2011 at 11:38 AM
@Ruby: I think for some people venting anger is unfortunately a process of self-stoking, for others it is process of enraging those around them who will then (by attacking back) justify you, for others venting is a purging process that one rides out to find oneself able to better deal with the world after it has passed.
In other words, like you I think that anger/venting works differently for different people at different times.
For myself (since I am a connoisseur of literature/movies/videos that feature post-apocalyptic visions of doom and destruction) I find playing out strange scenario in my head rather soothing.
Thins I (personally) also find useful to do when angry (weeding, kneading bread, proof-reading, writing reviews of dreadful books, chopping vegetables, and rereading particular scenes from books/rewatching particular scenes in movies.)
Posted by: Mmy | Jun 12, 2011 at 11:45 AM
@Kit Whitfield: I'd say that venting isn't what does the healing. Asserting oneself is: identifying and protecting one's boundaries, expressing one's opinions, saying 'I hold to my truth' - these are all things that can help someone to value themself. But one can vent without doing those things appropriately, and one can assert oneself without extreme aggression.
Dang it Kit, once again you have stated well what I have been trying to put into words.
One problem with venting (aside from the fact that it can be self-destructive at times) is that even when it is helping the person who is venting it (like steam escaping) can cause great damage to those in the vicinity.
Posted by: Mmy | Jun 12, 2011 at 11:49 AM
- A straight person competing for a job against a gay person is at an advantage if the interviewer is homophobic.
Well, that would be me benefiting from someone else's homophobia, not my own, which differs from the question I proposed.
Of the points that you raised, I think that the tax benefits point is the strongest, and perhaps one by which the marriage inequality might be addressed judicially (5th Amendment, perhaps?). (maybe it has been)
Posted by: spinetingler | Jun 12, 2011 at 12:16 PM
@spinetingler: your original post was How do straight people benefit from homophobia?
Granted, I'm not homophobic, but I'm having trouble envisioning some way that being so would improve my life.
and you followed up with: Well, that would be me benefiting from someone else's homophobia, not my own, which differs from the question I proposed.
You didn't originally ask how you would benefit from your own homophobia -- but from homophobia in general.
But, either way, when your homophobia (or someone else's) makes it difficult for other people to compete for the same jobs as you -- you benefit. When you get more than your "fair share" of societal resources because of your own or other people's homophobia -- you benefit. When your crimes/misdemeanors are less investigated because you are presumed to be straight you benefit whether or not it is your homophobia or someone else's that causes that inequity.
Posted by: Mmy | Jun 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM
@Spinetingler: you seem to be asking on the assumption that people benefit from being bigoted themselves. That's not how it works.
People benefit from being members of a bigoted society that elevates their group above others. Whether or not they're bigots themselves has nothing to do with it.
Being bigoted may actually put you at a personal disadvantage sometimes - if, for instance, you turn down the better candidate and wind up with a less useful employee. Bigotry isn't self-directed, it's other-directed: that's the whole point. Bigotry means valuing some people-who-are-not-you above others. Generally they're people like you, but your bigotry largely benefits them rather than yourself, just as their bigotry benefits you.
Prejudice is club, a system of mutual unfair benefits, where you don't have to opt in to get the advantages. If some straight people are favouring straights and screwing over everybody else, or some white people are favouring whites and screwing over everybody else, or some men are favouring cissexual heteronormative men and screwing over everybody else, and the bigots have power in society, then the benefits that accrue to the favoured are fall-out rather than a personal choice.
It's like a deal: I'll favour people like me and they should favour me back. If you're not bigoted yourself and don't return the favour, you'll probably anger the bigot and get accused of being some kind of sexuality/race/gender traitor - but it doesn't mean the favour they gave you didn't benefit you.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Jun 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM
For Kit and Ruby, I would like to know how you would have regarded the situation if I had nuked Ray on the Mormon thread. I wanted to nuke him to explain in specific detail how offensive, violent, hurtful, and downright evil I found his position and the actions he was advocating. I wanted to express that in a way commensurate with the vehemence it provoked in me. I never did. How would you have regarded that, if I had done it at the point where I did use a few cuss words, but at length, with caps and lots of cussing and specific insults, all relevant to the remarks he had made?
Would you have seen that as me abusing him to make myself feel better? Would you have judged that I was working out my issues online when I should have seen a therapist instead?
Posted by: Literata | Jun 12, 2011 at 02:19 PM
@Literata
Probably not, insofar as I know anything about the inside of your head, but it's hard to say about a hypothetical. I would, however, have sighed at the sight of capitals and insults, because I would have expected it to end the possibility of a civil discussion - and also because I tend to find that insults are less impactful than just forceful descriptions of what's wrong with what someone is doing, and you were making your points very clearly and firmly as it was.
I wouldn't assume someone was working out their issues from a single outburst that was relevant and specific to an angering circumstance, or even from occasional outbursts that were relevant and specific. I'm more talking about cases where people habitually explode on small provocation.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Jun 12, 2011 at 02:38 PM
Literata: For Kit and Ruby, I would like to know how you would have regarded the situation if I had nuked Ray on the Mormon thread. I wanted to nuke him to explain in specific detail how offensive, violent, hurtful, and downright evil I found his position and the actions he was advocating. I wanted to express that in a way commensurate with the vehemence it provoked in me. I never did. How would you have regarded that, if I had done it at the point where I did use a few cuss words, but at length, with caps and lots of cussing and specific insults, all relevant to the remarks he had made?
Would you have seen that as me abusing him to make myself feel better? Would you have judged that I was working out my issues online when I should have seen a therapist instead?
(Inasmuch as I can say what I would have thought...)
My main point, back in the nuking thread, was that I am against nuking after one post/problematic statement. I also become very uncomfortable and frustrated by nuking that goes on for pages and pages and pages. So as far as "at length" goes, I guess it would depend on how much length. And much would depend on when you actually nuked.
I agree with you that Ray was being ongoingly obstinate and obtuse, and was trying to play the victim card on top of that. So I don't think I would have thought you were trying to work out your own issues with one post. I might have scrolled past a long post that appeared to be nothing but all caps and cussing and personal insults. I might not have. I might have thought you were making good points. But then again, many people in the discussion, incuding you, were making excellent points without nuking, and (since I can't see inside Ray's head) I don't know if nuking would have made him think, or driven him away, or just made him even louder and more convinced of his victim status.
And I doubt this response has helped much at all, but it's the best I can do on a hypothetical.
Posted by: Ruby | Jun 12, 2011 at 02:54 PM
Kit and Ruby, thank you for your replies. I tried to make the example as specific as I could.
The impression I get from your replies is that although you don't think your general objections about the potential problems of anger apply to that situation, you would still object to or find the nuking disruptive and less than useful. I understand that, and I am willing to incur that risk. But do you think that I am right that in some situations my anger is a relevant part of a conversation, whether or not it is helpful? Ray tried to use loving, caring language to present his feelings of love and concern. Is it acceptable - even if sometimes less than productive - for me to use angry language to try to present my feelings of anger, violation, and disgust? If you can say that it is sometimes, even if you don't like it, then my concerns about being shunned for judicious expressions of anger will be considerably diminished. If not, if we have a fundamental disagreement about this, I'd like to know.
Posted by: Literata | Jun 12, 2011 at 03:17 PM
Literata, I would have considered your anger a relevant and appropriate part of the conversation at that point. Your nuke would have happened only after extreme provocation, not after the first offense, which makes a significant difference to me.
Posted by: kisekileia | Jun 12, 2011 at 03:36 PM
Trigger warning: graphic violent language and swearing (by way of an example, not directed at someone personally)
But do you think that I am right that in some situations my anger is a relevant part of a conversation, whether or not it is helpful? Ray tried to use loving, caring language to present his feelings of love and concern. Is it acceptable - even if sometimes less than productive - for me to use angry language to try to present my feelings of anger, violation, and disgust?
My general answer to this would be 'yes'. But I can't guarantee that it would be either yes or no every time, because 'angry language' takes in such a wide range. 'You are trampling on my rights as a human being and your attitude is thoroughly disgusting' is angry language I have no problem with; 'You fucking shithead I hope you get cancer and die spitting blood' is angry language I do have a problem with. So much depends on specifics.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Jun 12, 2011 at 03:36 PM
Thanks, kisekileia and Kit.
Posted by: Literata | Jun 12, 2011 at 05:50 PM
It's like a deal: I'll favour people like me and they should favour me back. If you're not bigoted yourself and don't return the favour, you'll probably anger the bigot and get accused of being some kind of sexuality/race/gender traitor - but it doesn't mean the favour they gave you didn't benefit you.
So true.
Do I bear the guilt for it, though?
Posted by: spinetingler | Jun 12, 2011 at 08:36 PM
How do straight people benefit from homophobia?
Granted, I'm not homophobic, but I'm having trouble envisioning some way that being so would improve my life.
and you followed up with: Well, that would be me benefiting from someone else's homophobia, not my own, which differs from the question I proposed.
You didn't originally ask how you would benefit from your own homophobia -- but from homophobia in general.
Ah, true, but I followed that up with a specific musing about being homophobic myself. So, there are really two questions there.
The first has been adequately discussed (Kit, et al.): i.e., benefiting from others homophobia as a straight person.
The second - not so much.
-----------------------------------------------------
The whole discussion/definition may have to be reshaped anyway - (2007) American Gallup Poll results...indicate that tolerance of homosexuality within the United States has reached a record high. According to the Poll, since 1977 public support of legalization of “homosexual relations between consenting adults” has risen from 43% to a record-breaking 59%. [http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/may/07053003] I expect that that number is even smaller today. I hope that we're reaching a point when being homophobic is not a subset of "privilege."
(I hope I haven't trashed the comments with multiple nested bolds and italics. Please feel free to kill me with sheep if I have).
Posted by: spinetingler | Jun 12, 2011 at 08:54 PM
spinetingler: Do I bear the guilt for it, though?
Is that really the hot question? We live in a homophobic society. Thus, those of us who are straight derive some benefits at the expense of others. That does not mean that we are "guilty," nor does it mean that in other contexts, we are not part of unprivileged classes. Privilege is not so simple as "you are privileged, but you are not." To give a short example, I am privileged because I am white and straight, but I am also not privileged because I am a woman and an atheist. We are all complicated.
And because the situation is complicated, it is not so easily resolved as saying, "No, you are not guilty."
I hope that we're reaching a point when being homophobic is not a subset of "privilege."
It is also becoming less and less popular (mostly, anymore, I hope) to openly express the view that women should be barefoot and pregnant. That does not mean that men do not derive benefit from sexism, even if it is not their very own sexism.
I think you are missing the attitude of society as a whole by focusing on the behavior (and the guilt) of specific individuals.
Posted by: Ruby | Jun 12, 2011 at 09:14 PM
@spinetingler: I hope that we're reaching a point when being homophobic is not a subset of "privilege."
Well if you live in the United States -- same sex marriage is not acknowledge by the Federal Government and therefore there are income tax deductions not available to people in same sex marriages. Insurance companies don't have to extend the same benefits to same-sex partners as they do to spouses. Hospitals don't extend the same visiting privileges. Adoption may be almost impossible. Immigration does not accept same sex marriages performed in other countries.
This is leaving aside the fact that people are still being beaten and even killed for the 'crime' of being not straight.
I will leave to QUILTBAGS on the board to give more details but I remind you that "getting better" is not anywhere near "no more privilege."
Posted by: Mmy | Jun 12, 2011 at 09:22 PM
Thus, those of us who are straight derive some benefits
And those of us who pass as straight. It takes a fair amount of effort to get people to consider the possibility that you are not the assumed default when it's not obvious. So some QUILTBAG folks have no chance of escaping prejudice, whereas others can choose to deal with the societal prejudice a little bit less at the cost of enabling oppression of a group we belong to, and of not acknowledging an important part of ourselves... It's a big can of aaaargghh!
Posted by: Lonespark | Jun 12, 2011 at 09:26 PM
So true.
Do I bear the guilt for it, though?
Whether or not you bear guilt, you still bear responsibility.
Whether you like it or not, whether you realize it or not, you're getting the benefit. And therefore it is your responsibility to work to replace your unfair advantages with justice.
That means work.
The work of listening to the people who don't have your advantages, to learn the actual harm they're suffering because of your unearned luck. The work of studying your own behavior, and the behavior of people around you, to recognize when your unfair advantages are coming in to play. The work of correcting your own behavior, when you slip up and either accept your unfair advantages to the detriment of someone else, or unthinkingly harm someone by perpetuating the wrong. The work of admitting that you will make such mistakes, despite your best efforts.
Posted by: Ursula L | Jun 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM
As the person who was the primary cause of this thread, am I welcome to comment on other threads here?
That is a sincere question. I read other threads here prior to the baptism thread and was impressed by the community and the discussions. It's the main reason I decided to comment on the baptism thread. (I'm not trying to play victim with this comment. I'm being honest and trying to explain as factually as I can.)
I wanted to comment on that thread to try to explain why most of my fellow congregants can't understand the criticism from those who don't like (or despise) the practice. That practice means a lot to me, symbolically, but I never once thought I was going to change anyone's mind - honestly. I just saw some factual misrepresentations and wanted to address them - and then try to explain the "why" of the practice from the perspective of a common member. That was the intial motivation finally to comment in a community I had admired for a while. Obviously, I botched the effort, but it really was a sincere effort to help people understand.
This is a wonderful post - and I know how ironic or insincere that probably sounds to many here. My main question also is about how we interact when we disagree vehemently - and I understand my responses in that thread weren't good and proper in more than once instance. Honestly, however, my frustration primarily centered on the continual statement that I couldn't understand that my view was offensive (which has been repeated in this thread), when, in fact, I have said from the very beginning that I really do understand that it is offensive and repulsive to many. I kept saying that, and I kept reading those comments despite my own statements to the contrary, and my frustration boiled over. I really am sorry for that - and I'm not trying to justify that reaction now.
The only clear disagreement I have with this post is the one about anger and winning:
I didn't win the previous discussion, even though I was far less angry than most others. I was as frustrated as some (and less so than others), but I actually never did get angry. Believe it or not, I never did try to "win" - and that hits, again, my initial question:
Am I welcome here in other discussions - even though I was the primary reason for this post?
Posted by: Ray | Jun 13, 2011 at 01:25 AM
I was the primary reason for this post
Actually you weren't; we wouldn't publish a whole post directed at a single individual. If someone was really causing problems, we'd address them directly. The issue of argument versus tone is an ongoing one in the community; the Frequently Needed Explanations are one response to that, and this was another. There have been a few flame wars in recent weeks, so it's been to the forefront - but the main reason I wrote this was simply that kisekileia said she didn't like Derailing For Dummies but did wish there was an explanation of poor arguments that wasn't so aggressive, and I thought it might be interesting to write. This wasn't an attack on you. Mostly it was me fooling around with a subject that appealed to me, partly because it seemed like a good challenge and partly because the site needs material.
I have no problem with you hanging around here. If people disagree with or don't like your posts they'll say so, but that's the same rule that applies to all of us. Being challenged is one of the central experiences here, as many people can testify. As far as I'm concerned, welcome to the community.
--
Do I bear the guilt for it, though?
If you mean 'Should I feel guilty?', then that's between you and you. How you should feel about it isn't anybody's place to tell you. For my money, guilt isn't a very useful emotion, as it tends to lead people to act defensively; remorse for something we've actually done encourages us to make amends, but guilt is generally destructive. But as long as you don't take it out on people if you do feel guilty or consider yourself entitled to exploit people if you don't, how you feel about it is your own business and no one else's.
If you mean 'Is it my fault?', then that depends entirely on whether or not you discriminate against QUILTBAG people. If you do then yes, partly; if not, then no - but the situation not being your fault for existing doesn't mean it's not your responsibility for trying to change.
Fundamentally I don't think it's a particularly useful question. The really useful question is 'What should I do?' That puts the focus on the victims of discrimination rather than the beneficiaries, and is positive, future-oriented and other-directed.
For myself ... well, I don't feel guilty. I feel sorry and angry and frustrated; I feel regret and bitterness when other straight people appropriate my sexuality as a weapon against QUILTBAG people; I feel obliged to challenge people when they're acting bigoted; I feel sadness and fury when QUILTBAG people get hurt; I feel admiration when QUILTBAG people succeed in getting their rights advanced. I feel that it's not fair that I should have more advantages than other people who are at least as good as I am, but I don't think that punishing myself would do those people any good, and they're the people it's about. Instead, I want those people to have the same advantages I have, and my feelings are about whether things are as they should be or not. But that's just me.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Jun 13, 2011 at 02:30 AM
Ray, my continuing frustration with you centered on the fact that you said you understood your view and actions were offensive, but your actions in continuing to defend it - and to act like if you just explained a little more, I'd "get" it - didn't match that statement. Notice how, by contrast, Carrie tried to help us understand without defending the practice as fundamentally okay; she did a very good job of that.
I did continue some conversation about behavior in that thread because of my concerns about community standards, which was more about my behavior than yours. I'm sorry if that contributed to your impression that this post and or thread were rebuking you. They're not; our lovely TeaBats would never be so meanly passive-aggressive as that.
You are welcome in the community. You would be welcome even if I had nuked you. I hope we can have more fruitful exchanges in the future.
Posted by: Literata | Jun 13, 2011 at 08:23 AM
Kit, thank you again for writing this. It's an excellent resource and I'm very happy to have it!
Posted by: kisekileia | Jun 13, 2011 at 08:45 AM
Thanks, Kim and Literata.
Fwiw, Literata, my attempts to continue to explain and clarify were meant to try to help everyone understand how most Mormons see it - not to try to make everyone "get" the practice itself in a way that would be acceptable to them. I still think there is a fundamental difference between how Mormons view baptism and how baptism is viewed in most of the rest of Christianity that contributes to a key misunderstanding between Mormons and others about the topic. That, however, is in the past, and I am not going to revisit it. It is over here, so, if I address it at some point, I will do so on my own blog.
Also, I will try to be better at controlling my own frustration in situations like that in the future.
I don't have any clue if anyone is interested, but the following posted on my personal blog this morning - totally independent of this thread. It deals with the same general topic and explains the main reason I don't like insisting that others see things the exact same way I do.
"This Perspective Works Best for Me Right Now" (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/06/this-perspective-works-best-for-me.html)
Posted by: Ray | Jun 13, 2011 at 08:57 AM
It's 'Kit', thank you, Ray. Seriously, it's right in front of you.
Posted by: Kit Whitfield | Jun 13, 2011 at 09:00 AM
I read something recently, can't recall where, which listed the idea of venting anger as "One of the things TV has misinformed people about in psychology" -- decades of sitcoms have convinced us that the opinion of the mental health profession is that If you don't vent anger, you will instead "bottle it up" and eventually "explode". The something I read claimed that such a statement should be caveated all to hell, because in the general case, venting your anger is a *habit*, and when people are trained to vent their anger as a regular matter of course, the various neurochemicals released reinforce it as habitual, and can lead to becoming the sort of person who vents their anger all over the place. Often in such attractive forms as picking fights and abusing loved ones.
But as I can't remember the source, I have no way of verifying that this view is actually legit.
Posted by: Ross | Jun 13, 2011 at 09:26 AM
That certainly sounds right, Ross.
On the other hand, expressing anger, rather than repressing it, is pretty healthy for healthy function for a lot of people in a lot of cultural settings...
And "venting" or releasing strong feelings can be a very important thing if you suffer from panic attacks and extreme anxiety, at least in my personal experience. So that's related, but not the same, and conflation doesn't help...
Posted by: Lonespark | Jun 13, 2011 at 09:37 AM
I'm not sure how related it is to the topic at hand, but the matter of How Not To Argue makes me think of this:
When someone has told you about a problem they are working through, in my experience, I have never encountered a useful answer that begins with the words "Well why don't you just..."
It seems like whenever someone uses that phrase on me (And there are certain people who use it EVERY time I have a problem, such as my manager and my wife's step-father), that muscle in my neck that makes me feel like I've been hit in the back of the head with a hammer tightens up. In pretty much every case, one of the following is true:
* I don't want your advice to begin with. I wasn't looking for help, I just wanted to talk about my problem
* I didn't want to talk about my problem at all, I only told you because you pressed the issue
* I'm already solving the problem in a different way, I'm just not done yet
* I'm already solving the problem in the way you just said, I'm just not done yet
* I have already considered and rejected your solution for reasons which I now have to waste time explaining
* I have already considered and rejected your solution for reasons which I can't adequately explain, and you're about to argue with me that your solution is right until I try it and fail
* I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for making me feel like an idiot by phrasing it in a way to suggest that your solution is simple and obvious.
Posted by: Ross | Jun 13, 2011 at 10:12 AM
It's 'Kit', thank you, Ray. Seriously, it's right in front of you.
Awww Kit, maybe Roy just had a typo he didn't see. Give Roy the benefit of the doubt. (-;
Posted by: Jason | Jun 13, 2011 at 10:14 AM
Ross: When someone has told you about a problem they are working through, in my experience, I have never encountered a useful answer that begins with the words "Well why don't you just..."
Didn't Nick Kiddle write something about that? Ah, here it is.
Posted by: Brin (not Meir) | Jun 13, 2011 at 11:27 AM
@Brin (not Meir), thanks for posting that link, as I hadn't realized Nick Kiddle had a blog. And that was a very good post he wrote.
Posted by: Laiima | Jun 13, 2011 at 11:40 AM
Yup, it's right in front of me. *sigh*
Sorry, Kit. What makes it worse is that I'm sure I was saying "Kit" in my mind as my fingers typed "Kim".
I hate reminders of how old I'm getting.
Posted by: Ray | Jun 13, 2011 at 12:20 PM
Jason, thanks for the laugh.
Posted by: Ray | Jun 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Thank you so much, Kit, for this article, AND for addressing Nick Kiddle's discomfort with the "not parthenogenic" phrase so graciously, AND thank you to everyone for the head-on discussion about appropriate communication of anger.
I've only got a few useful (I hope) things to add to the discussion about anger that seem not to have been said yet. One is, I'm always uncomfortable about the idea that there are appropriate times and inappropriate times to be angry. Being angry is involuntary -- at least, I think, the first flash of it is. I have had too much experience with people shaming me for feeling anger at all, even the littlest bit, when they think anger is inappropriate (or that some amount of anger is disproportionate) to feel comfortable with discussing "the appropriateness of anger" full stop.
Which is why I used the phrase "appropriate communication of anger". I think that's what's really being discussed: appropriate ways to communicate the anger we're feeling in the conversation.
The other thing is, I'm also uncomfortable with the idea, raised early on in the discussion, that communicating anger might only be appropriate once we've determined that the person we're angry at has malign intent. Too far in that direction is a genuine tone argument. It disproportionately burdens non-privileged people (for whatever privilege is at play at the time). There's no room in it for "Gods damn it, I have been nickle-and-dimed all week, hell, all my life, with these little sexist/cissexist/homophobic/racist/otherwisebigotted barbs, and I cannot deal with you stepping on my already aching toe right now, no matter how innocently you say you did it."
There's not even any room for "Damn it, you say something thoughtless in every single conversation we have from your position of privilege that I do not share. No, I am NOT going to carefully avoid hurting you with my anger by carefully, patiently interrogating you for motive and understanding every. Single. TIME when you can't, apparently, be bothered to do the work of LEARNING HOW NOT TO HURT ME IN THE SAME WAY IN EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION WE HAVE?!"
Yyyeah, I've had some interactions along those lines recently. Ish. Recently-ish. So: not so happy with the burden of always sussing out the current pain-in-the-butt's motives when they've been a repeated pain-in-the-butt or when my butt is in agony already.
Right. That's all I've got.
(I'm habitually behind in reading everything Slactiverse because if I check in every day, I get nothing else done all day, neither work nor play. So I've lately tended to go away for awhile and come back to what feels like this requisite that I read everything since my last comment in order to have the right to participate again (my perception, and nobody's fault but mine!), so I increasingly don't come back for fear of losing another 3 days of productivity. Heh. For what it's worth, I did read all responses to my last, but only some 1.5 weeks after the thread had died, so... nothing useful to add there, really, except more hugs to Lonespark.)
Posted by: Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | Jun 15, 2011 at 01:00 AM
Coming in late to the party. Like Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little, I end up always behind in reading the comments, so I'm often out of sync with everyone else. But I couldn't let Kit's post go by without saying how much I appreciated it. So even though everyone else has sat down, I'm rushing in to add my bit to the standing ovation Raj started on page 1 of the comments.
Posted by: Dash | Jun 15, 2011 at 09:30 AM