Talk:Tone argument/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 25 September 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

shrill

Cf. "shrill." However, I have often seen this term used to excuse hurling torrents of verbal abuse at an opponent. Such is the bottom of the internet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tone Policing

This actually can be expanded or made part of a larger article.

Tone policing is when an argument, or even a personal experience, or even EMPIRICAL DATA, is dismissed because the presenter has a discerned 'nasty tone' or is angry about the issue. Basically, it's an unrealistic equation of unemotional, 'neutral' writing and rationality; if a person speaks or posts angrily about something, even if it is a thing that should logically make anybody angry (say, the murder rate for transgender individuals, for example; that's rage-inspiring) if you want to talk about it you aren't allowed to be angry. Even worse is when a suppressed group is told that their anger at being treated like dirt 'hurts their cause' even if it they are speaking out in actual pain. While it's OK to call somebody out for being just an unpleasant person, using their anger as the only foot their argument stands on, or for harassing other people, it's not OK to step on other people for not being perfect Vulcan philosophers of their pet cause. In reality it's often used as escape button, 'You are too angry so I won't talk to you.'

It's kind of like a modification of 'I THOUGHT THIS WAS RATIONAL WIKI!' except instead of trying to end the discussion with 'you guys are nuts,' the escape hatch is 'you guys are too angry.' ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 13:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am guilty of this sin. I am currently chewing out a guy on a different website because I find his writing obnoxious and self-righteous. I'm not trolling, because I mean every word of it. I'm so fucking sick and tired of people right now. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, the traditional definition of "troll" doesn't cover the fact that most trolls are sincere in their beliefs. It does kinda make you wonder what outcome they expect though -- when Zander Borthwick was infesting the Facebook page, he once up and said he expected to change minds, but of course it didn't work (at least partly because Zander's world view was most diplomatically described as "insubstantial"). Honestly, I think most trolls are on some kind of crusade. EVDebs (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that most trolls are sincere in their beliefs. The traditional idea of an internet troll was that they were cynically anoying people for the fun of it. What we are seeing is "definition creep" whereby anybody who is somewhat annoying is now a "troll".

I don't even think that "tone troll" is a good phrase. What is being described is a bad way of arguing - not trolling.--Coffee (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the definition of troll seems to have morphed from "someone who is deliberately misrepresenting themselves to annoy people" To "someone who annoys people". Overall I am ambivalent to the change, except that it means that sometimes internet policies are misinterpreted as the old definition of troll is much more specific than the new. Here at RW this means that people are often blocked for being "trolls" when they actually don't meet the original criteria. Tielec01 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How about writing something on "grammar policing"? We've all met that irritating grammar nazi who immediately refuses to acknowledge any points you might have had based on the fact that your grammar and spelling are off. When you then tell them you're not an English native speaker they just retort with "English is the language of the internet, deal with it". Same thing, eh. Nullahnung (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I just point out

While it is stupid to say that angry/mean/whatever = wrong argument, that does not mean you should go around being a complete fucking dickhead just because you are (or at least think you are) right. I mean, let's face it, one is probably not going to actually take in an argument that is essentially "fucking [argument] fucking proves [conclusion], you fucking shitty piece of pussy-fucking, tit-licking, cock-humping, anus-snorting, fist-swallowing, cunty cunt cunt cunty cunt faggotini monster moron idiot fuck braindead blood-filled subhuman antithesis of everything that is not the epitome of a really shitty shit! GAAAAAAAHTDFBUTGYRESSESGHNCARJBDSIDIDYOURMUMYOUFYCKINGSLUTMANWOMANPENISVAGINAPIRNOFUCKDILDOWEEDCRACKBLAZEIT420YOLOSWAGHASHTAGMLGPRONOSCOPE360HEADSHOTWRECKEDYEAH1!1!!!!" So, anyway, while I think it shouldn't be used to say an argument is bad, it is better to just not be an arrogant bastard in the first place. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{The epitome of Gods and Men alike} 14:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

jon stewart rally

what d'yall think about the big stewart/colbert rally of 2012 or whenever that was. the one where they made the claim that all sides need to lay down the extremism in order for the national conversation to return to civility. bill maher had a beef with this stance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfHD36sWQBo any merit in mentioning how center-left guys like stewart et al. call for balance? EauDeCologne (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dawkins

It seems to me that a substantial number of the objections one hears to Dawkins are are tone arguments.

But our article says: "It is generally used by a tone troll against opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person."

It's unlikely that Dawkins is lower on the "privilege ladder" than most people who criticize him. I know our article says "generally" but is the statement really generally true?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Intersectionality = multiple privilege ladders. In this case, the lower social privilege afforded to atheism - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Out of curiosity, may I ask what the issue was with the nature of my edit? Noir LeSable (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Best guess: the tone was wrong for a summary. Ironic. Ikanreed (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"You Catch More Flies With Honey Than Vinegar"

Being needlessly offensive is counterproductive self-gratifying bile ejaculating.

And, far more often than not, casting about for validation of offensiveness as needful is really just giving in to the urge to validate one's tendency or authority to lash out. Folks are wont to rationalize emotional lashing out at others. And often they don't even consider the harm of needless offensiveness, but instead think that so long as they're "playing by the rules" of being rational, flinging contempt is allowed. And this article is in greater part asserting this is the case. This article is half a monument to rationalization in service of emotional urge. The extent of awareness of the benefit of calm, not-needlessly-offensive discussion is evident in only a single sentence fragment couched in mitigation of that fragment. Wow.

If it's accepted among those who exalt reason that emotionality hampers clear thinking and progress, why is so much effort spent on validating freer reign of offensiveness, that which exacerbates emotional response? It's hard, emotionally, to refrain from lashing out with contempt. I sympathize. But if you hold as one of your goals encouraging others to think differently and see reasonably, you would do better to leave off the needless offense. Don't you agree?

What I think is needed is a distinction between kinds of offensiveness. Then we can discuss which kinds are needful. Then we can encourage or discourage the kinds as suits our intellectual, rather than our emotional, goals.

Thanks for your concern! - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)