Posts by Andre Alessi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I do get a bit uncomfortable when the boundaries between "inclusive speech" and "speaking for" get blurred in shared spaces on the Internet. I acknowledge that this certainly is a great example of able-bodied cis-male privilege on my part, but sometimes it seems to me that, for example, cis people can spend a lot of time lecturing other cis people about what trans* people want, with very little input from trans* people themselves. That's sometimes (not often, but it does happen) yet another rhetorical softball bat being used against people who might simply not know any better.
It's a tricky thing, I acknowledge, because there's a direct correlation between inclusive speech and the participation of a more diverse community of commenters-sort of a "Speak it and they will come" type thing. But I do think we need to be aware of the fact that we aren't speaking for people like us and that it isn't our place to decide what they want (or to see "them" as a homogeneous group, either.)
This is as the top of my mind at the moment because of discussions in the comic book community around the possibility that Oracle (Barbara Gordon, formerly Batgirl, now quite famously in a wheelchair and very much still a superhero) might be "cured" of her lower body paralysis. A conventional wisdom has developed in the fan community which says that this is an unequivocally abelist move on DC's part, and anyone who disagrees is likewise abelist. In almost every case, the argument (made by able-bodied individuals) is that the idea that someone in a wheelchair might want to walk again is an example of abelist privilege. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time around people in wheelchairs for a variety of reasons, I find that argument itself remarkably abelist, because it assumes to speak for all people in wheelchairs, some of whom really would like to be able to walk if given the chance, and others who are happy as they are, and others who change their minds from one day to the next. I wouldn't want to assume that any one of those positions was the right one, or the only acceptable one.
I don't mean to question the value of inclusive language generally, but I do think it's important to make that distinction between that and merely "speaking for" as another kind of empty rhetorical device intended to win arguments on the internet, or to police communities into being less inclusive rather than moreso by excluding people who aren't aware of the specific terms used to talk inclusively.
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to Jolisa,
Ugh. Just realised my whole comment above is probably a classic example of tonesplaining.
I think it was a very good example of splainingsplaining, which we need more of! I', sure we've all seen those discussions where someone uses a jargon-y term like "mansplaning" and, when questioned about what this means in the context of the discussion, they'll say "Go do some research!" as if the issue was the definition of the term, rather than the way it fits into the comments made. Without meta-analysis that becomes yet another "checkmate" move that doesn't advance the conversation one iota.
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to Russell Brown,
Hey, can anybody help me with one of the standard shut-downs in the feminist blogosphere: the “tone argument”?
Anyone’s objection to someone being an asshat is instantly disabled when it’s labelled a “tone argument”. It seems to me that tone is incredibly important to a sensible discussion, and that remonstrating with someone over their obviously unhelpful tone is a productive form of moderation.
I get that it’s A Thing. But where did “tone argument” come from?
More or less, it was originally an attempt to point out the ad hominem fallacy in the argument that because someone uses naughty words, or says mean things, they must therefore not be capable of reasoned debate. It’s characterised by saying things like “I’m not talking to you about this until you calm down/apologise for calling me a sexist jerk/start looking at this situation rationally” which is (even now) pretty standard practice for many “Men’s Right Activists” on feminist blogs as a way of avoiding discussing a person’s underlying arguments.
Like most terms, it’s morphed considerably since then (probably because, like most community-generated terms, people learn the definition tacitly, and are just expected to know what it means) and it’s often used in ways that aren’t directly related to the dismissal of arguments by ad hominem attacks, like your example of calling someone out for being an asshat.
There’s a misapprehension (usually from people who see being a dick on the Internet as a right) that any criticism of style or tone from a position of privilege is a “tone argument”.
ETA: Also, what Danielle says upthread. It's frequently a response to attempts to dismiss the concerns of non-privileged groups by claiming they're upset over trivialities.
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
It’s not one particular group of people, just whoever is left still active in the chat. The main downside of this is if you’re offline for a day and try to join in on the original topic, it’s almost impossible.
I've belatedly accepted that this is just how things go, and despite my constant anxiety about posting something irrelevant or out of context, I'll throw my two cents in whenever I come across the thread. The worst that can happen is that I'll be ignored or teased, which is something I'm at peace with.
-
Bouncing off on a tangent after the reference to mansplaining: Richard Dawkins managed to make a dick of himself over at Pharyngula by “explaining” to Western feminists that their issues don’t actually matter because someone else has it worse.
Classic mansplaining that deserves to be called as such, and I’m glad PZ Myers decided to tell Dawkins off for it. (Link goes to PZ’s rundown of the situation, which is well worth reading for its attempt to be fair and forthright-although not nearly strongly enough for my tastes.)
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to Russell Brown,
20% of PA readers spend more than 30 hours a week on the internet.
What on earth do people do with their time when they're not on the Internet? I don't understand! That's 138+ hours a week not spent on the Internet. Noone needs to sleep that long.
Seriously though, that's a really interesting demographic breakdown. And I still have no idea who Kimberley Crossman is.
-
Muse: That Book, The Ban That Isn't,…, in reply to Rich Lock,
My working hypothesis is to assume everyone reading this is able to make that distinction, and note that part of the discussion was what would a bookseller in 1920’s Germany, unblessed with 20/20 foresight, do?
Well, if that's the case then my point about the analogy not being appropriate still stands. What does that situation have to do with the King/Wishart one at all, other than the implication that the action of selling both books is somehow morally questionable in hindsight? It doesn't even speak to the social pressure being brought to bear on booksellers, since that wasn't the case in 1920s Germany, and that is very much the issue in this discussion.
There are plenty of other examples of books that were threatened with suppression by the court of public opinion. There's no reason to risk Godwinning this discussion by bringing Mein Kampf into it.
I also think that your edit was unnecessary: anyone daft enough to think you might have some sort of affinity for the ideas of Mein Kampf can be dismissed pretty easily.
I perfer to play it safe on this particular topic. While I'm sure there aren't any anti-Semites amongst the regular PAS commenters, I'd rather not have my words taken by some bigoted lurker to indicate even tacit support for the ideas presented within Mein Kampf.
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to Jolisa,
I think I prefer the original term, ‘patronising.’
I'm occasionally tempted to use "matronising" in gender-appropriate contexts on other websites, but my sense of self-preservation always wins out.
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to recordari,
Spoiler Alert: have you seen Toy Story 3? I mean when Andy sits down and plays with all the toys… enough
Kevin Smith wasn't joking when he said that film should've been called Schindler's Toys. I bawled myself silly in the cinema, while the people I went with sat dry-eyed and bored.
-
I’m surprised that the attitude that “People can buy the book directly from Wishart’s website” has been allowed to pass without comment. Not everyone has a credit card, and not everyone has internet access. So yes, for some members of the community, if major retailers choose not to stock a book it is as good as a ban.
I would also really appreciate it if people didn’t keep comparing King (or Wishart for that matter) to Hitler. It’s such a horribly inaccurate, loaded analogy on so many levels. And for the record, the moral problems with Mein Kampf have very little to do with the content of the book, which is the same sort of chest beating ethnic triumphalism that was all too common at the time (and, some might argue, still is to a degree.) It was what its author did after he published the book that cause people to question the moral consequences of the ideas espoused within.
EDIT: Having reread the above comment, I'm siezed by the uncomfortable feeling that it didn't clearly make my opposition to the ideas of Mein Kampf obvious (I'd like assume that this was a given, but...) I'll let it stand because it's Monday morning and my brain is still warming up.