Worth Reading: 05/09/2014

@evajolli: All I ever said was some people like Ms. Allen have tone issues on these topics, and that overly aggressive and angry tones can push people further to the opposition, rather than court them to the cause. I don't think you really disagree with that, judging by your comments. I think you're just angry, and want to make that clear, and want to scream "fuck anyone who doesn't get it no matter the reason." And I understand that, I really do. I empathize, I have my own issues, trust me. However we have to be better, we have to sell it not force it with a hammer. We have to be the ones talking while the other side is yelling idiocy, not the other way around.

Not sure how else to say it. If you disagree, fine, but all you're doing in this thread is attacking people who are on your side.

@evajolli: you're making us all look bad.

Spookin with Scoops 'The Thing' edition incoming?? Do it, Patrick!

You know what? I think you need to go back to the start and rephrase your entire argument from scratch. As it stands, your arguments are poorly worded, filled with holes, and any time someone points out the gaps in your logic, you struggle to make us believe that those holes don't exist. This is why fueling your arguments with rage is a bad thing. If you don't come into a debate with a clear head, it lessens the ability to craft a solid argument.

It's late here and I should be heading to bed soon. So, tell you what. Take some time, rewrite your argument in its entirety, reread it a few times and make sure it says exactly what you want to say before you post it. Don't argue that you're right and some other user is wrong; just state your argument, start to finish, and give solid explanations to back up your points. When I check this thread after your response, maybe we can start over. If you want to have any chance of winning me over to your side, you need to prove to me that you are capable of constructing a valid argument that supports your views first.

Also, it would help if you stopped insulting people.

Until then, good night.

Generally, if someone realizes that they are on the "wrong" side of an issue, that is impetus to move to the "right" side. Your wording makes little sense when taken directly, because it seems to insinuate people who believe that Samantha is right, but choose to disagree with her anyway. The only context that I'm aware of in which this action of disagreeing with someone you agree with makes sense is because of the tone or context of the argument.

In other words, people disagreeing with Samantha based on her tone.

So no, I am still not twisting your words.

But that's exactly what you said.

Paraphrasing, you said that if someone disagrees with Samantha based on her tone, then they are wrong and terrible. This is something you just said minutes ago. The quote is right there. I am not twisting words here. You are judging someone's character based on their unwillingness to agree with someone who delivered her message with hateful invectives.

Those are a lot of assumptions you're making. Also, how am I twisting your argument? It's one thing to say that I am, but it's another to explain how I am. And if you don't tell me how I'm twisting your argument (which I'm frankly not), then your accusation doesn't make any sense.

This kind of stuff has to stop. The content of that Samantha Allen article is so completely spiteful and unproductive I'm honestly shocked to see it presented as worth reading for any other purpose than how not to have a productive discussion about social issues. I can honestly say that after this, I do not support this feature anymore and really am starting to question Patrick's role here. Giant Bomb is not a place I come to so I can feel worse about myself, but Patrick insists on promoting nasty attack articles like that Samantha Allen piece as a worthy use of my time. He just seems way too extreme at times.

I read what stingingvelvet said, and I believe that stingingvelvet's position is a far more agreeable one than yours because he/she is not taking every slight against his/her position as an attack that needs to be met with insults. You have been nothing but unreasonable in this thread. Trying to force your point with aggression doesn't make your argument any more valid than the point of another person. It just makes it less likely that people will pay attention to your argument, regardless of your position. Shouting down dissent is not a form of debate.

The one being unreasonable here is you. You're aggressively confrontational and refuse to see the viewpoints of others, insisting that anyone that disagrees with Samantha in any way is wrong and terrible. You don't seem to understand, or wish to understand, that it is possible to agree with principles of Samantha's argument while criticizing the tone and context of the message. If I say that LGBT people are deserving of equality, that's reasonable. If I say that LGBT people are deserving of equality and anyone that disagrees is a shitfucking bucket of pisswater that should be shot in the street, the point regarding LGBT being deserving of equality may still be valid, but no one is going to pay attention to that because I am also advocating murder at the same time. In stating such, I have crossed a line from being reasonable to being a lunatic and no one should take me seriously regardless of the basis of my moral standing. And while Samantha isn't advocating murder, the tone she takes is far from one promoting reasonable discourse.

Also, I don't own a fedora.

What does that even mean? That anyone that disagrees with Samantha is inherently wrong and a terrible person? Do you even understand the concept of what reasonable debate entails? Because you certainly haven't demonstrated that in this thread.

A fair point. I feel like some of the greatest acceptance has come from points of empathy when lawmakers and citizens alike have discovered that their family member, co-worker or neighbor are part of the spectrum. Hopefully that trend continues; I've been lucky enough to live in a fairly spacious bubble by figuring things out during college and having supportive parents, but things desperately need to improve for people in worse situations.

I'm a sociology teacher, so I have a read a lot of his stuff too. I guess at a certain point it's subjective, but I always took him as fiery and angry at times, but never hateful. And he always balanced his anger with words of peace and nonviolence. My main point was the comparison with the Black Panthers, who in contrast saw it as a war they were willing to fight to win.

Neither really applies exactly to a much different modern debate, of course. However gay marriage and LGBT acceptance is unarguably winning the debate, and it's doing that by making people empathize with those who just want to love their significant other and not be demonized for it. When we turn it into a war and start throwing around the bigot label we do ourselves a disservice, in my opinion. We put those who might be creeped out by homosexuality or who were raised to dislike it into a defensive position of insisting they're not bigots, rather than trying to get them to empathize with a dude who just wants to marry his boyfriend and live his life in peace.

Obviously there are still times to get angry, but I think some go overboard, and that was my only point. When Ben Kuchera starts calling Nintendo executives bigots who should be fired I think he does the movement a disservice.

Who is Samantha Allen and why is she article-worthy?

Just felt the need to hop in here and say that the popularized image of MLK as a totally peaceful, non-aggressive person does a disservice to his actual writing, speeches and message. He certainly advocated nonviolent protests, but works like Letter from a Birmingham Jail were fiery and charged; most of us just don't see it that way at first glance today, because we live in a very different, more socially progressive society compared to the past. He never minced words, and he wasn't afraid to call it like he saw it. Of course, that doesn't sit well with a society who prefers activism to be rosy, calmly spoken, and easily pushed to the side, so his image has been molded by history books and schoolteachers to fit their own needs. Our society tends to neuter the work that our more radical figures accomplished right after they pass away and lose the ability to contest their representation.

I do think there's a fine line to walk between being passionate and essentially insulting your audience, but sometimes there's just no way to sugarcoat things without being safely put aside and ignored by the white, patriarchal majority. Sometimes you have to get raw in order to do the subject justice.

I'm not saying Samantha Allen's critique is perfect, but please understand that arguments should not be dismissed simply because they weren't presented with a bow and a soothing voice. King was never that.

@joshwent: Very well said!

I'm interested in what your definition of "tone policing" is, in the context of starting a discussion to try and create positive change. When you're trying to convince a group of your opinion that they might disagree with, your tone is incredibly important. Even when asking for something fundimentally inconsequential and nowhere near as important as minority representation, tone matters. The difference between, "can you please pass me the salt?", and "pass me the fucking salt, asshole.", should be pretty clear. And it's only amplified when you're discussing these crucial issues that some folks have ignorant problems with already.

I feel like the implications of an idea like "tone policing" to you, is that you view criticism of a tone as the same thing as invalidating everything that was said, whereas to me the problem is the exact opposite. It's folks (like me) who long for those vital points to be made, but realize that the tone can make it impossible to actually hear what's being said. And worse, can stifle others who are speaking more reasonably.

To awkwardly quote myself from earlier in this thread:

This is precisely why I get so saddened at seeing the kinds of articles like this one from Samantha Allen lauded by people like Patrick. The Miiquality movement was a beautiful (and unfortunately rare) example of making a push for inclusivity in an inclusive way, yet the media reaction to it largely steals all of the focus from the positive point and just breeds more anger and division.

When the people in the right relentlessly use the tactics of those in the wrong, everything just gets worse for everybody.

I wish you'd stop editing your above comment. As for this one: it's very telling you saw my comments in this way. Have a nice day.

Well you're not really saying anything or addressing my points at all, so I'm going to stop attempting to debate with you. Thanks.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say because your writing is a little haphazard here. Of course my empathy works and of course I understand the issues, that's all beside the point. The point we're actually making is all about tone and style. When you write aggressively, and "hate the hate" for lack of a better term, you invite anger back at you. When you write with the goal of making people understand your feelings, how it feels to be treated this way, then you invite empathy from your audience.

One is convincing one is not. Go back in time and compare Martin Luther King Jr. with the Black Panthers. Which do you think did more to bring about racial tolerance in America?

So I guess it won't be too much of a stretch to have more of those characters be PoC/women/gay/transexual.

Will never take seriously anything Samantha Allen has to say in the future.

@evajolli: remember Giant Bomb's golden rule...don't be a jerk.

Thanks.

It's not about dumbing down or politics, it's about talking to people like you're trying to convince them, trying to make them understand, rather than like they're dumb children you have to scold. Even if those people ARE acting like dumb children you can't talk to them that way, unless all you want to do is fight and yell and say hateful things to each other. If you want to change minds you talk in a wise, empathetic tone. Did you even read the article I linked to?

@evajolli said:

Considering I was the person who first pointed it out and don't see how its at all a joke- hence, you're lmao'ing at me- please show me where i have made a joke at the expense of any other group, let alone everyone else.

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just another form of bigotry. For example, if I went to Japan I would be a minority. But even if a lot of people treated me like shit, that wouldn't allow me to start making generalizations, prejudging people, and mocking my "oppressors" as a race without being a bigot.

I'll get to the manticore thing but I feel like I should be upfront and say: I do feel weird when Men make these sorts of comments and don't at all feel weird when Women do it. I never hear Women make derogatory comments towards Men with the same sort of venom and inherent seriousness that I perceive when Men do it. That's the way my life has gone so far and that's how it's shaped my worldview. It's clear you disagree and we aren't going to come to any agreement anytime soon on that.

Now about that Manticore thing.

If a guy drew a picture of a male version of a typically female mythological creature that was saying "Kill All Women" I would be slightly unnerved again because of the reasons I gave earlier. But I wouldn't be that unnerved by it because it's a manticore with extreme views.

@spaceinsomniac said:

I'll take exception to jokes involving misandristic manticores when men are systemically marginalised and discriminated against. Until that day, I will continue to have no problem with women venting their frustrations humorously.

Good stuff, some really good article choices!

"Sounding like."

Write in a hateful voice, get hate back. Write in an empathetic, wise voice, get empathy back. Simple.

@stingingvelvet:

And he does it all without sounding like an angry, hateful maniac.

The irony of criticising someone as hateful and then calling them a manic in the same breath.