Didactic Thumbs (Pedantry Corner)

[Ben X]

Which of these is a tone argument? All, some or none of them?

 

I don't like it when X says "gators are abusive misogynistic fucking arseholes" because it's so uncivil.

I don't like it when X says "gators are abusive misogynistic basement-dwelling nerds" because nerd jokes are shitty.

I don't like it when X says "gators are abusive misogynistic psychos" because it's ableist.

 

And is there an element of subjectivity to this where your answer depends on your perception of X and their motives?

[Ninety-Three]

Which of these is a tone argument? All, some or none of them?

 

I don't like it when X says "gators are abusive misogynistic fucking arseholes" because it's so uncivil.

I don't like it when X says "gators are abusive misogynistic basement-dwelling nerds" because nerd jokes are shitty.

I don't like it when X says "gators are abusive misogynistic psychos" because it's ableist.

 

And is there an element of subjectivity to this where your answer depends on your perception of X and their motives?

 

I would say none of those are tone arguments, because I don't think a tone argument happens until one crosses the line separating "I don't like it because ~" to "It shouldn't be done because ~". After all, I can say that I don't like jazz, and no one will interpret that as an argument against jazz.

 

If they were phrased as "It shouldn't be done", I think the first is a tone argument, because if it isn't, then what is? The third is surely not a tone argument, because its point is "That's discriminatory". If that was a tone argument, then calling things racist would be a tone argument, which is obviously absurd. Having phrased it that way, I think the second is also not a tone argument, as it seems to be saying "That's perpetuating a harmful and untrue stereotype", though there's some room for interpretation on what exactly is meant by "nerd jokes are shitty". I suppose perception of X and their motives could come in there, though I think if it were more clearly stated, perception of X wouldn't enter into it.

[Ben X]

Ok, thanks for the response.

 

It happens to exactly matches my understanding of it (and apologies for the phrasing making it hazier than it could have been!).

 

Any differences of opinion or additional comments, anyone?

[Merus]

I understand a tone argument as any argument that boils down to 'I don't like your tone'. This is subtly different to 'you shouldn't be so angry' - it's still presumptuous as fuck but it's not a tone argument.

[tberton]

To me, a tone argument criticizes the way a point is made, rather than its content and in a way that doesn't link the one to the other. All three of those statements are a bit too surface level to illustrate what I'm saying but basically, if an argument boils down to "if you said this exact same thing, but in a nicer way, I would agree with you" that's a tone argument, whereas "you're saying things in a way that contradicts or confuses the point you're making" is totally valid.

[Merus]

I'd also consider 'why do they expect people to take their argument seriously if they present it like that' is also a tone argument. The key problem is that it's a disingenuous argument; it's an argument that implies that the argument is being dismissed because it's being presented passionately, when the argument is in fact being dismissed because it challenges precious assumptions that aren't usually questioned in polite company.

[Deadpan]

I think there's a problem in trying to define it via content since the tone argument criticizes a particular rhetorical move that is different from just any kind of argument about tone. Intent and context are very important to the distinction: saying that you are on-board with an idea but think that the tone of a particular contribution is unhelpful is quite different from saying that you would support something if they argued for it in a nicer, less disruptive fashion. The latter is what people tend to criticize, I think.

 

Because it's a power grab. It's a way of holding your support hostage until people cater to you, personally, and because of just how often this complaint is made by men, about feminism, it also often falls into the related category of Not All Men: we would support this, but only once you stop making us feel bad. And the proposed way of doing so, of course, is to stop talking about ways men are complicit in things. Allow us to dictate which topics you are allowed to address, and to determine in what order of importance your movement should address them. We will support you, if we're allowed to be at the helm.

 

Also important to remember, I think, that tone arguments work the other way around, too. You see that every time people describe a particular article on a subject or a particular activist as rational (i.e. not emotional), friendly (i.e. not angry) patient (i.e. not upset), etc. When people describe somebody as one of the good ones, or say that finally there's an article worth reading about this, the implication is, of course, that all the other ones are bad ones, and that all the other articles are worth dismissing.

[Ben X]

a full "cannon" Asian wonder woman would be great in many ways

 

my minor head cannon that Magneto is more flamboyantly attention seeking than he is all about mutant superiority.

 

Given season 2 I now wonder if this is cannon or just a 'possible' future.

 

etc.

 

For this meaning, it's spelt (or 'spelled') canon.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I believe you should reread my post in context, I'm as proud of my minor head cannon as I am of my major chest cannons.

[Ben X]

No no no, I made that joke after your post!

[Badfinger]

Back me up or shut me down please, Thumbs.

 

When we have orders that need to be picked from a long time ago that we need to go back to, they will reissue the same list from a previous date. So for example if we sent 3 widgets and the customer said a widget was broken from that order and we need to send one more, we will often use that same order rather than creating a new one. The Customer Service team will sometimes write "For Reference Only" on those sheets, which makes me confused. When I read that, my brain interprets that as "take a look at this but don't do anything with it", whereas they are intending it to mean "fill this order" somehow. Who has the meaning right of us, if anyone? Am I right to be a pedant about this?

[SuperBiasedMan]

No no no, I made that joke after your post!

?

Reread the post Ben.

[Ben X]

Either you edited that just now or something's going wrong with my head, because I didn't see that when I responded originally, or when I quoted it this time (plus I don't remember deleting it out to quote you)...

[SuperBiasedMan]

That's madness Ben, I don't even know how to edit a post! Honest!

Edited March 14, 2015 by SuperBiasedMan

[Ben X]

Are you pointing out that all edits can be seen, or copping to the fact that you did edit it (and it doesn't show up on older posts or something)? I need to know if it was all in my head or not!

[SuperBiasedMan]

I edited it about an hour ago, thought it'd be obvious and then when it wasn't I thought a cheeky edited post would make it obvious. But it seems you're very easily confused by my manipulations.

Also you entirely choose whether or not to add the edited by line.

[Bjorn]

Back me up or shut me down please, Thumbs.

 

When we have orders that need to be picked from a long time ago that we need to go back to, they will reissue the same list from a previous date. So for example if we sent 3 widgets and the customer said a widget was broken from that order and we need to send one more, we will often use that same order rather than creating a new one. The Customer Service team will sometimes write "For Reference Only" on those sheets, which makes me confused. When I read that, my brain interprets that as "take a look at this but don't do anything with it", whereas they are intending it to mean "fill this order" somehow. Who has the meaning right of us, if anyone? Am I right to be a pedant about this?

 

You've got the right of that, marking it "For Reference Only" is a weird fucking way to mark that.  We do the same thing (reprinting an old invoice rather than making a new one), but instead of using a simple phrase, we just briefly explain what's going on, like "Resend 1 widget, customer reported 1 arrived damaged". 

[Ben X]

I edited it about an hour ago, thought it'd be obvious and then when it wasn't I thought a cheeky edited post would make it obvious. But it seems you're very easily confused by my manipulations.

Also you entirely choose whether or not to add the edited by line.

 

Oh, thank fuck for that. Well, I learnt something about edits today, and also SBM's cruel gaslighting tactics. Thanks, Didactic thread!

[SuperBiasedMan]

Oh, thank fuck for that. Well, I learnt something about edits today, and also SBM's cruel gaslighting tactics. Thanks, Didactic thread!

In my defence, these tactics are usually more blunt and noticeable to people when I do them.

[Ben X]

If I'd known about the edit thing I would have been more sure of myself! I guess that "beg the question" incident has shaken my confidence in my nitpicking abilities

[Ninety-Three]

I could care less

 

I hate this so much. The only thing it conveys is "It's definitely not the case that I don't care at all", which is almost always the opposite of what the speaker intends. Does this just come from people mishearing "I couldn't care less"?

[Dewar]

I have had that argument with enough people that I gave up. 

[Gerretic]

This is a general pedantic question not tied to any particular comment: what do people mean by 'performative'? I see it used a lot in ways that, to me, read like "I'm saying this to put on a show of [whatever]," for instance, if I were worried that I'm using discussion of feminism to seem like a conscientious person*, I might express concern that my feminism is performative, or something like that.

So, I think I mainly see the word used in that kind of context. Is that what people mean or is it something else? I ask because looking up the definition I see that it can refer to "performative utterances," where the act of saying something is itself a concrete action, e.g. "I now pronounce you man and wife." This is a neat concept that I'm glad we have a word for and I would be sad if that meaning were lost.

*

I am often concerned about this but this is not the appropriate thread.

[elvaq]

For me I've always seen 'performative' as a completely neutral turn that can go either way depending on context. Doesn't carry an automatic negative connotation

[tberton]

Yeah, like elvaq said, it's a pretty general world and doesn't have any inherent negative connotation. It's used in academic circles a lot, especially when talking about issues of identity. Generally, when you say that something has a "performative element" you mean that part of the value of the action is that it's meant to be seen by others. So if I say that I'm performing masculinity, for instance, it means that the purpose of some of my actions is to be seen as a man. To take a facile example, the fact that I wear jeans instead of skirts is a gender performance.

 

In the example you brought up about feminism, it's certainly reasonable to be aware of the performative aspects of feminism (especially on the Internet), but don't take it to automatically be a negative. All discourse is wrapped up in performance in some way.