Why can't we all just be nice?

[sqbr]

So, we have group X. They have a cause (sexism, racism, the environment etc). You support this cause in principle, but don't like the way they pursue it. That's fine, but there are certain arguments which result from this situation which come up again and again and I thought I'd address them here. I've been pondering it for a while but this was a big "inspiration" :/

Note that if you do have a problem with that cause then that's a different thing, though then you still have to be careful not to conflate the medium with the message so the arguments below are still problematic. In fact a lot of the time I think people use these arguments (especially the last) to mask the fact that they don't want to support group X, but aren't willing to say that due to peer pressure or not having any rational argument beyond "It's hard" or "it makes me uncomfortable".


They're just not nice

"Nice" (or "polite" or whatever) is a very subjective thing, and different people have different standards. I've been deliberately vague in this post about what I mean by "nice" so that my argument is more general, but you have to think about what you're expecting here: basic decency? Non violence? Or perfect etiquette?

Beyond that, if someone says "You need to stop perpetuating racism/creating greenhouse gases etc" you're going to have an immediate feeling of guilt/fear and unfortunately 99% of people's (including mine) kneejerk reaction to that is anger. You FEEL like you've been insulted by the very fact of what is being said (You, personally, are complicit in racism/the destruction of the climate!), regardless of how nicely it is said. When we look back at past activists they seem reasonable because the things they were asking for seem reasonable now, but at the time they were all seen as dangerous trouble makers. Being angry and determined and sticking up for what's right is not rude, it is necessary.

A lot of the time people say "Group X is rude/violent etc" when that group is actually polite and reasonable in it's official face, and 99% of it's members behave decently. ANY large group of people is going to have some hot-heads. And people from group X being snarky and rude about others in a group X space is a totally different thing: then they're not worrying about PR, but venting, motiviating each other etc. If it hurts your feelings, get out of their space.

EDIT: Since I didn't make this clear: much of the time, when you(*) feel like someone is being rude for telling you off, the ONLY "rude" thing they are doing is telling you off, and there's no way for them to criticise you without coming across as rude. So by saying "be nice" what you're really saying is "Stop pointing out my bad behaviour". This all goes double if the criticism attacks stuff like race privilege etc, like I said above people get veeery defensive, see the links at the end.

(*)"You"=most people. Possibly not you the reader, if you're a better person than I and 99% percent of the population and don't take any criticism as an insult.

It's in their own best interests to be nice

I agree. Up to a point. Obviously, it's bad PR to be completely obnoxious.

But if you see someone from group X being (in your opinion) too rude or whatever then that doesn't mean you necessarily have a right to ignore them, discount them, or rant at them about how ineffective their methods are. The medium is not the message. You can point out flaws in the medium, like spelling mistakes etc, and there are situations where "I think your language is too aggressive" etc is a valid piece of constructive criticism, but there's a difference between genuinely trying to help someone with their cause and taking potshots/nit-picking. And as we all know, responding to someone's criticism of your behaviour by critiquing their spelling is not a winning strategy.

And sometimes being polite and non-confrontational doesn't get the job done. Aggression and even violence have at times been effective for a group getting their way. I'm not saying that makes them right (that's the next section :)) but that's not what we're arguing here. Yes, the effectiveness of more extreme/violent etc protest is a very controversial topic, and where the line should be drawn very subjective. But it's certainly not a given that the most effective way to pursue a cause is to be as nice as possible.

For example, I have yet to find a feminist discussion which is both comfortable and friendly and calls people on their racist/classist assumptions. I'm not sure you CAN have both: either you poke at everything people say and sometimes hurt their feelings, or you let them get away with saying prejudiced crap. Compare and contrast feminist and shangy_feminism.

EDIT (Not sure about this paragraph, still thinking it through): Now sometimes an extremist subfaction of group X does things that are totally untenable (terrorism as an extreme example) and this really does damage their reputation as a whole. But often there's not a lot the non-extremists can do, and if they spend all their time on the defensive doing PR to cover for those guys they won't have the chance to actually pursue their agenda. Also, in-fighting and factionalism is the bane of every large group, and sometimes you have to ignore very strong differences to get anything done.


They have a moral obligation to be nice

No they don't. Like all human beings, they have a moral obligation to behave with human decency (although, again, this is all very subjective), but if they're oppressed etc they have more justification for being angry and rude, not less. If someone gets really angry at you for what seems like a minor thing, keep in mind that they are going to have seen/experienced that "minor" thing over and over again. I've certainly seen this with sexism: lots of stuff which seems harmless to men is incredibly frustrating to me, and sometimes this makes me narky.

If someone is being so incredibly nasty to you or others that you think they're not behaving with human decency then yes you have a right to complain and maybe refuse to deal with that individual. But that doesn't necessarily make them incorrect, nor does it give you a right to ignore other, decent people with the same message (see next point)

People often say the previous statement when they mean this one ie "They shouldn't be so rude, it'll piss people off" = "They have hurt my feelings and this is bad".



If they're not nice I'm justified in ignoring their cause, maybe even actively opposing it

Ok, if "they" are terrorists and "their cause" is a free trip to Barbados then yes. But in general, you don't just get to be moral when it's easy and the person you're being moral towards is nice. That's like saying "I only support animal rights for the cute animals". And you certainly don't get to take one person's actions as justification for mistreating/ignoring an entire group of people.

This gets taken to a particularly bad extreme when people decide it's ok to ignore a cause because of it's supporters when they're not even the ones who benefit. Like saying "I would be vegetarian but PETA are too violent" or "I'd work against global warming but Greenpeace gets on my nerves". The earth did not elect those people as representatives, and taking a stand against smug environmentalists won't save you from flooding.

You can refuse to support a particular organisation, but that's different. And even if you don't 100% agree with an organisation's tactics you have to weigh that up against the good they do, noone is perfect.


Links
This post grew from one on racism, so here's some racism links I collected, on the whole I think they translate pretty well to other group Xs.
Mine:

• How to get involved with race discussions online without totally messing it up I think a lot of the time when people accuse activists of being "mean" it's the result of engaging with them in the wrong way.
  

Other peoples:

• Musings on fandom and racism A white fan talking about her similar experience to mine of slowly getting over defensive anger
  
• Anger doesn't equal hate
  
• The Privilege of Politeness
  
• Tone: Let's approach this from the other direction unsuccessful call for examples of when a nice "tone" actually worked, very interesting discussion
  

EDIT: and some I happened across just now!

• Protesting Prop 8 is like being in the KKK and my new word of the day Concern Troll
  

Comments

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

I see how it is, Sophie. Some things are just more important to you than civility and common decency. Well I never!

[alias_sqbr]

And ONCE AGAIN here you are DENYING MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!

Seeking clarification

[justadecoy.livejournal.com]

"But if you see someone from group X being (in your opinion) too rude or whatever then that doesn't mean you have a right to ignore them..."

Do you mean you don't have a right to ignore the cause, Group X or the individual who is being too rude or whatever?

That bit just scans a bit oddly to me is all. I think you have the right to not engage with someone who you believe is rude and/or irrational but that doesn't translate to not engaging with the message at hand nor do I think it gives you the right to engage but be dismissive or hostile rather than critical of their standpoint, as you rightly point out.

I agree with you on "the medium is not the message".

Re: Seeking clarification

[alias_sqbr]

Oops, you're right it's ambiguous. I changed it to "doesn't mean you necessarily have a right..". Basically there's a continuum: if someone is completely polite you should listen to them. If someone is completely obnoxious you're probably fairly justified in ignoring them, though I think you should pay some attention in case it turns out that they're not actually being that obnoxious in context and have a point (ie someone behind you in a line yells "MOVE you %&^er!", and it turns out you're standing on their foot)

But if someone is a bit ruder than you think is necessary, but still being relatively reasonable, then imo you probably shouldn't ignore them. It does depend a LOT on context though, what I'm mainly having a problem with is people who set the bar for "rude" so low that they feel comfortable ignoring everyone.

It's worth mentioning that my personal ideal of interpersonal interaction is very polite and non-confrontational, so a large proportion of people are "ruder than I would like". It's possible that what you would classify as "slightly rude" I would classify as "VERY rude", and what I would classify as "slightly rude" you would classify as "perfectly normal", but despite these classifications we'd draw the line for "too rude to talk to" at the same place :)

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

Slightly tangential, but was wondering if you'd seen this episode of IllDoctrine's video blog?

[alias_sqbr]

Indeed I have, and he makes his point well.

[fallimar.livejournal.com]

Hm... I'm a little torn on this myself, not sure if I can agree fully.

I know where you're coming from, and in theory you're perfectly right, but I think the major issue here is that most people ARE going to react badly when confronted by something as described above, no matter how they SHOULD react. The majority of humans when they have an issue shoved in their face are going to go "Whoah, hold on there a sec, so why is this bad again?" and unless the problem's explained calmly, or at least with some degree of restraint, they're going to think (generalising, I know, but speaking from experience too) that the person's a raving nutter.

Speaking about actually -getting things done- on the other hand, I agree fully that sometimes being nice doesn't get you where you need to be, or even get you heard. Still, there's a big fat line between that and seriously pissing people off for no real gain, and my experience with some of these groups (PETA is one I really don't like for example, using them as you've mentioned them yourself above) is that for all the 'positive' (IE PR friendly, people will be happy to listen) kind of messages they put out, there's a few incidents that just scream THESE PEOPLE ARE INSANE, which of course get all the coverage and make the organisation seem like "just another group of crazies, don't listen to them."

Is this fair? No! OF course not. But it is how society works, and how most people are going to react whether they should or not.

It's a slippery slope I suppose, balancing getting things done and pandering to the general public. :|

At least you've got me thinking, eh? ;)

[alias_sqbr]

No, that's a good point, sometimes extremist factions really do damage a group's reputation. Of course there's not necessarily much the non-extremists can do about this, and we as individuals should try to see the complexity of positions held within group X even if society as a whole tends to conflate them.

*ponders how to edit post to reflect this*

[grahame.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I can't agree with much of your post. I've been mulling this over for a bit, and it seems to me that you're making excuses for bad behaviour because said behaviour is motivated by an ideology, specifically an ideology you judge to be worthwhile.

But if you see someone from group X being (in your opinion) too rude or whatever then that doesn't mean you necessarily have a right to ignore them, discount them, or rant at them about how ineffective their methods are.

.. of course it gives you the right to ignore them, discount them and/or point out that they communicate poorly. The thing I think you're missing is that the 1% of people espousing a particular viewpoint poorly (rudely, violently, ...) are the ones that get 99% of the publicity. That might be in some ways effective, but I still don't condone such methods.

It's a hard point to make without sounding like an -ism denier, but a fair few people wandering around calling people on things are looking for the worst possible meaning in the words of others. I tend to question the motivation of people doing that, especially those who communicate poorly while doing so.

[alias_sqbr]

Actually, no, I think we just have different attitudes to rude people in general.

Criticising how someone communicates is one thing, and yes, if someone is really rude you do have a right to go "Hey, that's rude! Stop it!". I wasn't clear, but what I was complaining about was people who rather than going "You being so nasty has annoyed me", or "you personally are too annoying for me to want to listen to", instead passive aggressively concern troll and expect to be thanked for it, or say "Since you are rude, you are clearly wrong", or take ONE person being rude about something as an excuse to ignore any later polite complaints.

But discounting/ignoring is a different thing. Just because someone is rude doesn't mean they're wrong. Are you saying you'd rather continue being wrong than take advice from someone who's rude? I mean there are certain kinds of behaviour which so strongly correlate with not being worth listening to that you're justified in ignoring people who use them (Unbelievably bad spelling, all caps flames, yelled from a car etc) but that's to save yourself effort/pain, not to punish them or because it's impossible that people communicating that way are wrong.

I don't know, am I the only person who has a huge gap between "More rude than I think is justified" and "So rude they're not worth engaging with"? There are LOTS of times where I think "that person is being unbelievably rude, and I don't like them for it, but I'll still try to figure out what they're saying and see if they have a point".

You've got me pondering a post to ask about other people's attitudes now. Can you give me some examples of hypothetical situations (preferably not about racism etc since I think the fact we have different attitudes about that could muddy things) where you'd feel justified in completely ignoring what someone was saying just because they were rude, but would listen if they were not? (It doesn't count if what they're saying is so crazy that you'd ignore it even they were polite) Cause I can't think of any situations where I'd do that beyond something like a 2 page expletive filled screed that hurt to read and had no clear message in the first sentence or so, or where even if they were right it was such a minor thing that it didn't matter compared to how rude they were being. (And I can't even think of an actual example of that) And come to think of it, I tend to ignore *polite* unreadable 2 page screeds that don't have any clear message in the first sentence or so.

I'm not denying that some people who say they're interested in fighting various isms are trouble making and nasty, though I have a feeling I would classify a lot less people that way than you (I certainly wouldn't describe anyone I know that way, just some people I've encountered online) But even they are right from time to time.

EDIT: That said, I will pay *more* attention to someone who is polite, someone who's rude has to try harder to convince me. But I won't ignore them *completely*.

[stephiepenguin.livejournal.com]

This gets taken to a particularly bad extreme when people decide it's ok to ignore a cause because of it's supporters when they're not even the ones who benefit. Like saying "I would be vegetarian but PETA are too violent" or "I'd work against global warming but Greenpeace gets on my nerves". The earth did not elect those people as representatives, and taking a stand against smug environmentalists won't save you from flooding.

This is a point with which I very much agree. It's incredibly frustrating. Your earlier point is also good, or perhaps it's in the comments, that sometimes situations is such that the person is not-nice, or being not-nice, and then to have their concerns automatically dismissed is very frustrating. I'd like to think people can listen to the content of someone's concerns even if they don't like the person or the organisation, but I'm not that naive.

I wish I could articulate my thoughts on these issues more coherently. Perhaps I'll give you the gist of my lj posts, you can ghost them for me and then I can post them. You can even work from home!

Also concern trolls aaaargh.

[alias_sqbr]

I think with the environment people don't want to admit that they're just too lazy, so cast about for someone to blame. I am at least wiling to admit that it's my own damn fault I don't do more :D

Concern troll is my new word of the day (so to speak), it's so nice to have a term for it. I'm going to have to stop myself gleefully shouting it at people if they show any signs of the behaviour.

I wish I could articulate my thoughts on these issues more coherently. Perhaps I'll give you the gist of my lj posts, you can ghost them for me and then I can post them. You can even work from home!

ahahahahahahaha.
ahaha
ha.

No. But thankyou for the laugh :D

Seriously, I have *counts* twenty four documents in my "unfinished posts" folder, the earliest from mid 2007. I know, because I had to re-sort that folder to find the three or four previous attempts I'd made at this post over the last few months.

Although, if you're offering to pay, and don't mind waiting... :)

In Which Sanguinity Is Obsterperous

[sanguinity]

I'm going to disagree with you, but from the other direction: you're being too nice. ;-)

Let me back up a bit. Having glanced through the inspiration post (twenty or so comments; there's only so much I can take at a go) what's going on there isn't that the "I no longer recognize marriage" people are being rude. There's nothing, on the face of it, that's so insulting about saying that to a married person, especially when you're doing it in a context of protesting an unfair law. All you're doing is pointing out that there are privileges that go with the word "marriage," and letting people try on for size what it feels like to not have those privileges. The only way that's "rude" is if people really sincerely believe that they deserve those privileges. If they believe that, then by saying "I no longer recognize your marriage", even rhetorically, you're temporarily lowering them to the status of an unprivileged person. Even if they do feel sorry for unprivileged people -- like the people in that post who said they were willing to support gay marriage -- they still think they're better than queer people, and that it's "insulting" to treat them (even just rhetorically!) as if they were part of that underclass.

Privilege -- especially unrecognized privilege -- has a way of getting deep inside people and making them believe that they deserve the privileges they have. That you really are better. It shows up on debunking-white over and over and over again -- people with bona fides of making the deliberate effort to recognize and claim their privileges discover (to their horror!) that they subconsciously think of themselves as better than the people who don't have those privileges. It's far worse in people who haven't started recogonizing their privileges.

Going back to your inspiration post, did you notice the individual threatening to withhold his vote until someone sucked up to him and made him feel better? They've got privilege, they've got power, and (as so often happens) it's gone to their heads, and made them think that they deserve being sucked up to.


So, coming from the recognition that "nice" maps quite strongly to "not being so unforgivably rude as to point out someone's privilege"...

They're just not nice. You're kinda getting at the privilege thing there through a back door. I do like your point about not perceiving non-privileged groups as a uniform whole, but I wish you hadn't conflated "not being nice" with "being hot-headed" or being violent. Every group has it's assholes, but it's usually not just the assholes who are being charged with being "not nice." It's the people who refuse to suck up who get charged with not being nice.

It's in their own best interests. Depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to get a bit of law passed, I would agree, challenging people's privilege is going to hinder what you're trying to do. If the goal is to get people to stop thinking of themselves as better than you, you're probably going to have to challenge their privilege sooner or later. And unless you do it very late, well after they've started to get there on their own, they're going to think you're "not nice."

...and I pretty much agree with you on your latter two boldface points. Wow, how'd that happen? ;-)


Of course, once you recognize that "you're not being nice" is the automatic defense against someone challenging your privilege, the issue then becomes: how do you point out to someone with unrecognized privilege that their demands that someone "be nice" are actually demands that they treat you like you deserve your privileges?

All I've got is that it's easier when the critique comes from someone else with your privileges. :-/

[alias_sqbr]

Thankyou for commenting, I thought about posting this on debunkingwhite but knew the flow of logic etc was a bit dodgy, but the problem with just having my flist read stuff is there's less chance of being challenged on my implicit racism etc.

You're right, I didn't do a very good job of distinguishing between people who are actually being rude, and people who are unfairly perceived as being rude. I think that's a hugely important distinction, but (and I didn't make this very clear) my point is that even if we assume those people are actually being too rude (which they're not) the arguments held against them still don't make any sense. This happens to me a lot: I need to be better at saying "Your A->B argument is flawed" without coming across as agreeing with A!

With regards to the particular rudeness of the example: I just realised, I was probably misinterpreting: I see anyone who's had a marriage ceremony as married, even if it's not legally recognised, it's a self identity thing. So to me saying "I don't recognise your marriage" is equivalent to saying "I don't recognise your relationship", which is imo rude under most circumstances (I certainly wouldn't say it to a gay married couple) But you're right, what he was actually doing isn't rude at all. (Am I still missing your point?)

people with bona fides of making the deliberate effort to recognize and claim their privileges discover (to their horror!) that they subconsciously think of themselves as better than the people who don't have those privileges. It's far worse in people who haven't started recogonizing their privileges

Yes, and this is something I definitely still have problems with myself.

Depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to get a bit of law passed, I would agree, challenging people's privilege is going to hinder what you're trying to do. If the goal is to get people to stop thinking of themselves as better than you, you're probably going to have to challenge their privilege sooner or later.

Absolutely. I think it depends a lot on context, but it's certainly not true to say that all social justice goals are best (or even possibly) achieved by never offendeding anyone ever.

nb: I think the only obstreperous thing about your reply was using a big word like "obstreperous" and thus making me feel dumb when I had to look it up :)

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

I see how it is, Sophie. Some things are just more important to you than civility and common decency. Well I never!

[alias_sqbr]

And ONCE AGAIN here you are DENYING MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!

Seeking clarification

[justadecoy.livejournal.com]

"But if you see someone from group X being (in your opinion) too rude or whatever then that doesn't mean you have a right to ignore them..."

Do you mean you don't have a right to ignore the cause, Group X or the individual who is being too rude or whatever?

That bit just scans a bit oddly to me is all. I think you have the right to not engage with someone who you believe is rude and/or irrational but that doesn't translate to not engaging with the message at hand nor do I think it gives you the right to engage but be dismissive or hostile rather than critical of their standpoint, as you rightly point out.

I agree with you on "the medium is not the message".

Re: Seeking clarification

[alias_sqbr]

Oops, you're right it's ambiguous. I changed it to "doesn't mean you necessarily have a right..". Basically there's a continuum: if someone is completely polite you should listen to them. If someone is completely obnoxious you're probably fairly justified in ignoring them, though I think you should pay some attention in case it turns out that they're not actually being that obnoxious in context and have a point (ie someone behind you in a line yells "MOVE you %&^er!", and it turns out you're standing on their foot)

But if someone is a bit ruder than you think is necessary, but still being relatively reasonable, then imo you probably shouldn't ignore them. It does depend a LOT on context though, what I'm mainly having a problem with is people who set the bar for "rude" so low that they feel comfortable ignoring everyone.

It's worth mentioning that my personal ideal of interpersonal interaction is very polite and non-confrontational, so a large proportion of people are "ruder than I would like". It's possible that what you would classify as "slightly rude" I would classify as "VERY rude", and what I would classify as "slightly rude" you would classify as "perfectly normal", but despite these classifications we'd draw the line for "too rude to talk to" at the same place :)

[flyingblogspot.livejournal.com]

Slightly tangential, but was wondering if you'd seen this episode of IllDoctrine's video blog?

[alias_sqbr]

Indeed I have, and he makes his point well.

[fallimar.livejournal.com]

Hm... I'm a little torn on this myself, not sure if I can agree fully.

I know where you're coming from, and in theory you're perfectly right, but I think the major issue here is that most people ARE going to react badly when confronted by something as described above, no matter how they SHOULD react. The majority of humans when they have an issue shoved in their face are going to go "Whoah, hold on there a sec, so why is this bad again?" and unless the problem's explained calmly, or at least with some degree of restraint, they're going to think (generalising, I know, but speaking from experience too) that the person's a raving nutter.

Speaking about actually -getting things done- on the other hand, I agree fully that sometimes being nice doesn't get you where you need to be, or even get you heard. Still, there's a big fat line between that and seriously pissing people off for no real gain, and my experience with some of these groups (PETA is one I really don't like for example, using them as you've mentioned them yourself above) is that for all the 'positive' (IE PR friendly, people will be happy to listen) kind of messages they put out, there's a few incidents that just scream THESE PEOPLE ARE INSANE, which of course get all the coverage and make the organisation seem like "just another group of crazies, don't listen to them."

Is this fair? No! OF course not. But it is how society works, and how most people are going to react whether they should or not.

It's a slippery slope I suppose, balancing getting things done and pandering to the general public. :|

At least you've got me thinking, eh? ;)

[alias_sqbr]

No, that's a good point, sometimes extremist factions really do damage a group's reputation. Of course there's not necessarily much the non-extremists can do about this, and we as individuals should try to see the complexity of positions held within group X even if society as a whole tends to conflate them.

*ponders how to edit post to reflect this*

[grahame.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I can't agree with much of your post. I've been mulling this over for a bit, and it seems to me that you're making excuses for bad behaviour because said behaviour is motivated by an ideology, specifically an ideology you judge to be worthwhile.

But if you see someone from group X being (in your opinion) too rude or whatever then that doesn't mean you necessarily have a right to ignore them, discount them, or rant at them about how ineffective their methods are.

.. of course it gives you the right to ignore them, discount them and/or point out that they communicate poorly. The thing I think you're missing is that the 1% of people espousing a particular viewpoint poorly (rudely, violently, ...) are the ones that get 99% of the publicity. That might be in some ways effective, but I still don't condone such methods.

It's a hard point to make without sounding like an -ism denier, but a fair few people wandering around calling people on things are looking for the worst possible meaning in the words of others. I tend to question the motivation of people doing that, especially those who communicate poorly while doing so.

[alias_sqbr]

Actually, no, I think we just have different attitudes to rude people in general.

Criticising how someone communicates is one thing, and yes, if someone is really rude you do have a right to go "Hey, that's rude! Stop it!". I wasn't clear, but what I was complaining about was people who rather than going "You being so nasty has annoyed me", or "you personally are too annoying for me to want to listen to", instead passive aggressively concern troll and expect to be thanked for it, or say "Since you are rude, you are clearly wrong", or take ONE person being rude about something as an excuse to ignore any later polite complaints.

But discounting/ignoring is a different thing. Just because someone is rude doesn't mean they're wrong. Are you saying you'd rather continue being wrong than take advice from someone who's rude? I mean there are certain kinds of behaviour which so strongly correlate with not being worth listening to that you're justified in ignoring people who use them (Unbelievably bad spelling, all caps flames, yelled from a car etc) but that's to save yourself effort/pain, not to punish them or because it's impossible that people communicating that way are wrong.

I don't know, am I the only person who has a huge gap between "More rude than I think is justified" and "So rude they're not worth engaging with"? There are LOTS of times where I think "that person is being unbelievably rude, and I don't like them for it, but I'll still try to figure out what they're saying and see if they have a point".

You've got me pondering a post to ask about other people's attitudes now. Can you give me some examples of hypothetical situations (preferably not about racism etc since I think the fact we have different attitudes about that could muddy things) where you'd feel justified in completely ignoring what someone was saying just because they were rude, but would listen if they were not? (It doesn't count if what they're saying is so crazy that you'd ignore it even they were polite) Cause I can't think of any situations where I'd do that beyond something like a 2 page expletive filled screed that hurt to read and had no clear message in the first sentence or so, or where even if they were right it was such a minor thing that it didn't matter compared to how rude they were being. (And I can't even think of an actual example of that) And come to think of it, I tend to ignore *polite* unreadable 2 page screeds that don't have any clear message in the first sentence or so.

I'm not denying that some people who say they're interested in fighting various isms are trouble making and nasty, though I have a feeling I would classify a lot less people that way than you (I certainly wouldn't describe anyone I know that way, just some people I've encountered online) But even they are right from time to time.

EDIT: That said, I will pay *more* attention to someone who is polite, someone who's rude has to try harder to convince me. But I won't ignore them *completely*.

[stephiepenguin.livejournal.com]

This gets taken to a particularly bad extreme when people decide it's ok to ignore a cause because of it's supporters when they're not even the ones who benefit. Like saying "I would be vegetarian but PETA are too violent" or "I'd work against global warming but Greenpeace gets on my nerves". The earth did not elect those people as representatives, and taking a stand against smug environmentalists won't save you from flooding.

This is a point with which I very much agree. It's incredibly frustrating. Your earlier point is also good, or perhaps it's in the comments, that sometimes situations is such that the person is not-nice, or being not-nice, and then to have their concerns automatically dismissed is very frustrating. I'd like to think people can listen to the content of someone's concerns even if they don't like the person or the organisation, but I'm not that naive.

I wish I could articulate my thoughts on these issues more coherently. Perhaps I'll give you the gist of my lj posts, you can ghost them for me and then I can post them. You can even work from home!

Also concern trolls aaaargh.

[alias_sqbr]

I think with the environment people don't want to admit that they're just too lazy, so cast about for someone to blame. I am at least wiling to admit that it's my own damn fault I don't do more :D

Concern troll is my new word of the day (so to speak), it's so nice to have a term for it. I'm going to have to stop myself gleefully shouting it at people if they show any signs of the behaviour.

I wish I could articulate my thoughts on these issues more coherently. Perhaps I'll give you the gist of my lj posts, you can ghost them for me and then I can post them. You can even work from home!

ahahahahahahaha.
ahaha
ha.

No. But thankyou for the laugh :D

Seriously, I have *counts* twenty four documents in my "unfinished posts" folder, the earliest from mid 2007. I know, because I had to re-sort that folder to find the three or four previous attempts I'd made at this post over the last few months.

Although, if you're offering to pay, and don't mind waiting... :)

In Which Sanguinity Is Obsterperous

[sanguinity]

I'm going to disagree with you, but from the other direction: you're being too nice. ;-)

Let me back up a bit. Having glanced through the inspiration post (twenty or so comments; there's only so much I can take at a go) what's going on there isn't that the "I no longer recognize marriage" people are being rude. There's nothing, on the face of it, that's so insulting about saying that to a married person, especially when you're doing it in a context of protesting an unfair law. All you're doing is pointing out that there are privileges that go with the word "marriage," and letting people try on for size what it feels like to not have those privileges. The only way that's "rude" is if people really sincerely believe that they deserve those privileges. If they believe that, then by saying "I no longer recognize your marriage", even rhetorically, you're temporarily lowering them to the status of an unprivileged person. Even if they do feel sorry for unprivileged people -- like the people in that post who said they were willing to support gay marriage -- they still think they're better than queer people, and that it's "insulting" to treat them (even just rhetorically!) as if they were part of that underclass.

Privilege -- especially unrecognized privilege -- has a way of getting deep inside people and making them believe that they deserve the privileges they have. That you really are better. It shows up on debunking-white over and over and over again -- people with bona fides of making the deliberate effort to recognize and claim their privileges discover (to their horror!) that they subconsciously think of themselves as better than the people who don't have those privileges. It's far worse in people who haven't started recogonizing their privileges.

Going back to your inspiration post, did you notice the individual threatening to withhold his vote until someone sucked up to him and made him feel better? They've got privilege, they've got power, and (as so often happens) it's gone to their heads, and made them think that they deserve being sucked up to.


So, coming from the recognition that "nice" maps quite strongly to "not being so unforgivably rude as to point out someone's privilege"...

They're just not nice. You're kinda getting at the privilege thing there through a back door. I do like your point about not perceiving non-privileged groups as a uniform whole, but I wish you hadn't conflated "not being nice" with "being hot-headed" or being violent. Every group has it's assholes, but it's usually not just the assholes who are being charged with being "not nice." It's the people who refuse to suck up who get charged with not being nice.

It's in their own best interests. Depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to get a bit of law passed, I would agree, challenging people's privilege is going to hinder what you're trying to do. If the goal is to get people to stop thinking of themselves as better than you, you're probably going to have to challenge their privilege sooner or later. And unless you do it very late, well after they've started to get there on their own, they're going to think you're "not nice."

...and I pretty much agree with you on your latter two boldface points. Wow, how'd that happen? ;-)


Of course, once you recognize that "you're not being nice" is the automatic defense against someone challenging your privilege, the issue then becomes: how do you point out to someone with unrecognized privilege that their demands that someone "be nice" are actually demands that they treat you like you deserve your privileges?

All I've got is that it's easier when the critique comes from someone else with your privileges. :-/

[alias_sqbr]

Thankyou for commenting, I thought about posting this on debunkingwhite but knew the flow of logic etc was a bit dodgy, but the problem with just having my flist read stuff is there's less chance of being challenged on my implicit racism etc.

You're right, I didn't do a very good job of distinguishing between people who are actually being rude, and people who are unfairly perceived as being rude. I think that's a hugely important distinction, but (and I didn't make this very clear) my point is that even if we assume those people are actually being too rude (which they're not) the arguments held against them still don't make any sense. This happens to me a lot: I need to be better at saying "Your A->B argument is flawed" without coming across as agreeing with A!

With regards to the particular rudeness of the example: I just realised, I was probably misinterpreting: I see anyone who's had a marriage ceremony as married, even if it's not legally recognised, it's a self identity thing. So to me saying "I don't recognise your marriage" is equivalent to saying "I don't recognise your relationship", which is imo rude under most circumstances (I certainly wouldn't say it to a gay married couple) But you're right, what he was actually doing isn't rude at all. (Am I still missing your point?)

people with bona fides of making the deliberate effort to recognize and claim their privileges discover (to their horror!) that they subconsciously think of themselves as better than the people who don't have those privileges. It's far worse in people who haven't started recogonizing their privileges

Yes, and this is something I definitely still have problems with myself.

Depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to get a bit of law passed, I would agree, challenging people's privilege is going to hinder what you're trying to do. If the goal is to get people to stop thinking of themselves as better than you, you're probably going to have to challenge their privilege sooner or later.

Absolutely. I think it depends a lot on context, but it's certainly not true to say that all social justice goals are best (or even possibly) achieved by never offendeding anyone ever.

nb: I think the only obstreperous thing about your reply was using a big word like "obstreperous" and thus making me feel dumb when I had to look it up :)

Rambly thoughts on niceness

[pingback-bot.livejournal.com]

User alias_sqbr referenced to your post from Rambly thoughts on niceness (http://alias-sqbr.livejournal.com/222235.html) saying: [...] people coming into discussions of racism and thinking they can be the "objective voice of reason". Why can't we all be nice (http://alias-sqbr.livejournal.com/183955.html) in which I rant about the "tone" argument, has more links at the bottom (*)A lot of people assume my "nice" ... [...]

Rambly thoughts on niceness

[pingback-bot.livejournal.com]

User alias_sqbr referenced to your post from Rambly thoughts on niceness (http://alias-sqbr.livejournal.com/222235.html) saying: [...] people coming into discussions of racism and thinking they can be the "objective voice of reason". Why can't we all be nice (http://alias-sqbr.livejournal.com/183955.html) in which I rant about the "tone" argument, has more links at the bottom (*)A lot of people assume my "nice" ... [...]