I'm kind of tired of U.S. Liberalism culture
Posted On: Nov 16, 2016 7:05:08 GMT
Doctor Pogo likes this
Post by wisp on Nov 16, 2016 7:05:08 GMT
Tone policing is really obnoxious, and some people do use it to gaslight or silence their opponents... but at the same time, if you want to change someone's mind, sometimes you might have to pander just a little and police your own tone. I hate to say it, but nobody ever convinced me to "check my privilege" by being abrasive or sarcastic. I hate saying that not only because tone policing sucks, but also because being snarky about people I think are wrong is one of my greatest joys in life. But before I became one, I was unwilling to engage with PC liberals when I felt like I was being accused. I don't want to give the impression that I mean marginalized people should stop being angry or assertive about their situation, but I think that allies at least should try to be diplomatic when they're trying to educate people. I might not always be able to hold my temper if I'm arguing about sexism, or having a low income, or sexual orientations that are always being erased, or mental illness... but I can try to be nice when I'm trying to change someone's mind about racism, transphobia, Islamophobia, etc., because I don't experience those kinds of prejudice.
I think another part of the communication problem is the type of language that we're using. There are certain words that immediately put people on the defensive and/or make them tune out. They're accurate and often the most concise way to make your point, but no matter what you're actually saying, they're usually received as combative/accusatory (racism, ignorance, white privilege, patriarchy, etc.) or whiny/weak (problematic, marginalized, toxic masculinity, inclusion, safe space, etc.). America has a serious problem with anti-intellectualism, and the conservative angry white working class think we sound like pretentious knobs with too much time on our hands when we talk like this. Most of the time even I think I sound like that (and I'll be honest, I can't write a post about this kind of thing unless I have several hours to kill, because the stakes always seem so high that I feel like everything has to be as perfect as possible). And when we try to get people to hear us by writing articles with titles like, "The Feminist Guide to Being a Foodie Without Being Culturally Appropriative," it's no wonder they aren't listening, because... well, this rebuttal really says everything I was thinking when I read it.
I think it might be good to try a more casual approach to the way we talk about this stuff with people outside our bubble. I read an article earlier about the connotations of the word "privilege," and it suggested that a better word to use might be "advantage." I think it was a really good point.
To agree with Lena... changing societal structures sometimes requires protests, but if protests are all we do before going back into our bubble and talking about how stupid the conservatives are, we might get some laws changed and people will go through the motions of being inclusive because they have to, but all the -isms and -phobias will just get shoved back into the closet until they think they have a chance to change the rules back and come busting all out again like they are right now. We have to change people's minds too, and maybe that takes a different conversational strategy, because the one we've been trying doesn't seem to be working.
Edit: This video is very relevant to the conversation too. Kind of more related to my earlier post.
Edit again: Also, I've noticed a thing in my own experience that we might want to keep in mind when approaching the "academic" language issue. Where I live, a lot of churches push the idea that intellectualism is anti-Christian. In my last year of high school, some of my school friends had pulled me almost ALL the way into that mode of thinking. I remember very distinctly that I had to write an essay in my humanities class on some philosopher that I disagreed with on the basis of my religious beliefs... probably Nietzsche. I had just been to a meeting of the prayer club (which was led by one of the Spanish teachers in a manner that I think was borderline inappropriate) where we talked about not being led astray by the world. I remember that I wrote the essay, but that I scrawled a Bible verse in the margin. I don't remember it verbatim, but it was something like, "Do not be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit, according to the word of man, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." What I took away from that at the time was that I shouldn't even consider other opinions because they were a result of Satan trying to use other people to poison me. I didn't get back around to critical thinking until I'd spent some time away from that group. Probably the biggest thing that got me to break out of at least some of the homophobia was reading different scholarly interpretations of those passages working from the original language, with more historical context than I was getting from church, and then I came to see that different translators inflicted their own biases on the Bible, and from there I slowly started thinking for myself again. (I mean, I still struggle with critical thinking sometimes; it wasn't easy to learn how to do it at all.) I used to know a lot of biblical information; if the conversation goes towards that direction, then maybe a conversation tactic we could use would be to present biblical counterarguments to try to get them to consider other angles. I might not be a Christian anymore, but there were several non-Christians that used to come to the youth group at my home church, and they brought a lot to our discussions about morality and prejudice.
I think another part of the communication problem is the type of language that we're using. There are certain words that immediately put people on the defensive and/or make them tune out. They're accurate and often the most concise way to make your point, but no matter what you're actually saying, they're usually received as combative/accusatory (racism, ignorance, white privilege, patriarchy, etc.) or whiny/weak (problematic, marginalized, toxic masculinity, inclusion, safe space, etc.). America has a serious problem with anti-intellectualism, and the conservative angry white working class think we sound like pretentious knobs with too much time on our hands when we talk like this. Most of the time even I think I sound like that (and I'll be honest, I can't write a post about this kind of thing unless I have several hours to kill, because the stakes always seem so high that I feel like everything has to be as perfect as possible). And when we try to get people to hear us by writing articles with titles like, "The Feminist Guide to Being a Foodie Without Being Culturally Appropriative," it's no wonder they aren't listening, because... well, this rebuttal really says everything I was thinking when I read it.
I think it might be good to try a more casual approach to the way we talk about this stuff with people outside our bubble. I read an article earlier about the connotations of the word "privilege," and it suggested that a better word to use might be "advantage." I think it was a really good point.
The distinction between “privilege” and “advantage” is important because “privilege” is not a particularly useful phrase to incite change in the minds or actions of others. No one wants to give up privileges. The entire idea of a privilege is based on possessing a special status that is somehow deserved. Privileges feel good.
Think about all of your privileges. Do you want to give them up? Does giving them up make you feel like you have somehow done someone a favor? (“Here you go … make sure you use this well.”) Or does giving up a “privilege” seem incoherent? It might, because generally privileges are given and taken by someone else. They are earned, and are seldom bad things to have.
Now try shifting your language to that of advantages. Ask yourself, “What advantages do I have over that person over there?” That question is much easier to answer and yields more nuanced responses. If I answer for myself, I can readily see that not all advantages are inherently problematic on their face. As a tall person I am advantaged in some spaces (e.g., reaching up to grab something from the high shelf in a supermarket), and disadvantaged in others (e.g., sitting in a cramped seat on an airplane). Yet if one looks under the surface, one can see that in both circumstances my (dis)advantage is predicated on design choices that are outside of my control. They are systemic. (It is also silly to say that I am tall privileged.)
source
Think about all of your privileges. Do you want to give them up? Does giving them up make you feel like you have somehow done someone a favor? (“Here you go … make sure you use this well.”) Or does giving up a “privilege” seem incoherent? It might, because generally privileges are given and taken by someone else. They are earned, and are seldom bad things to have.
Now try shifting your language to that of advantages. Ask yourself, “What advantages do I have over that person over there?” That question is much easier to answer and yields more nuanced responses. If I answer for myself, I can readily see that not all advantages are inherently problematic on their face. As a tall person I am advantaged in some spaces (e.g., reaching up to grab something from the high shelf in a supermarket), and disadvantaged in others (e.g., sitting in a cramped seat on an airplane). Yet if one looks under the surface, one can see that in both circumstances my (dis)advantage is predicated on design choices that are outside of my control. They are systemic. (It is also silly to say that I am tall privileged.)
source
To agree with Lena... changing societal structures sometimes requires protests, but if protests are all we do before going back into our bubble and talking about how stupid the conservatives are, we might get some laws changed and people will go through the motions of being inclusive because they have to, but all the -isms and -phobias will just get shoved back into the closet until they think they have a chance to change the rules back and come busting all out again like they are right now. We have to change people's minds too, and maybe that takes a different conversational strategy, because the one we've been trying doesn't seem to be working.
Edit: This video is very relevant to the conversation too. Kind of more related to my earlier post.
Edit again: Also, I've noticed a thing in my own experience that we might want to keep in mind when approaching the "academic" language issue. Where I live, a lot of churches push the idea that intellectualism is anti-Christian. In my last year of high school, some of my school friends had pulled me almost ALL the way into that mode of thinking. I remember very distinctly that I had to write an essay in my humanities class on some philosopher that I disagreed with on the basis of my religious beliefs... probably Nietzsche. I had just been to a meeting of the prayer club (which was led by one of the Spanish teachers in a manner that I think was borderline inappropriate) where we talked about not being led astray by the world. I remember that I wrote the essay, but that I scrawled a Bible verse in the margin. I don't remember it verbatim, but it was something like, "Do not be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit, according to the word of man, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." What I took away from that at the time was that I shouldn't even consider other opinions because they were a result of Satan trying to use other people to poison me. I didn't get back around to critical thinking until I'd spent some time away from that group. Probably the biggest thing that got me to break out of at least some of the homophobia was reading different scholarly interpretations of those passages working from the original language, with more historical context than I was getting from church, and then I came to see that different translators inflicted their own biases on the Bible, and from there I slowly started thinking for myself again. (I mean, I still struggle with critical thinking sometimes; it wasn't easy to learn how to do it at all.) I used to know a lot of biblical information; if the conversation goes towards that direction, then maybe a conversation tactic we could use would be to present biblical counterarguments to try to get them to consider other angles. I might not be a Christian anymore, but there were several non-Christians that used to come to the youth group at my home church, and they brought a lot to our discussions about morality and prejudice.