![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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:
Other peoples:
EDIT: and some I happened across just now!
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
