![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So yesterday I got into a flamewar on Twitter, that I'm actually a bit embarrassed about. Many of my tweets were quotes taken directly from my opponent and re-worded to apply to him instead of me, so any of you who follow me on Twitter but didn't follow him, if you were thinking I sounded a little bit unusually harsh or stupid, that's why.
Now, this CAN be a valid tactic to show how one's arguments are wrong in some way. For example, when one doesn't understand why it's wrong to use taxpayer money to pay for a monument to display the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, we can replace "the 10 Commandments" with some list of rules from any other non-Christian religion and ask if it's OK to do it then? This illustrates the violation of church and state and the hypocrisy of the defender of the monument.
Of course, with true bigots, they still won't see it, but it *does* make otherwise rational people actually look at the view they're espousing. Many people simply haven't looked at the issue from the other side before.
But sometimes it's just another form of "I know you are, but what am I?" and "Oh yeah? Well, you're a big poopy head too!"
So I started talking with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
datan0de about why I think I went overboard and didn't help my cause, and why there really *is* a place for the hardnosed bitch in the activism debate alongside of the kindly gentleman professor. I already know that I'm seen as much more of a bitch online than in person, and I have always attributed that to plain text with no non-verbal cues to soften my words.
But I think there's more to it than that.
I think where I get into the most trouble is when I am limited in my expression.
If I have limited character expression, for example, I can't adequately explain my thoughts, which are often meandering and complicated run-on sentences. With enough repetition, I'll come up with some soundbites, like "I prefer to find spaces to fit the people in my life, not people to fit the spaces in my life" and "there must be something deeper going on" and "it's not a poly problem, it's a people problem". But that really only applies to a few concepts that I've had to express thousands of times, and soundbites are limited in their functionality. That's why I so often just post links to videos or other people's blogs in my comments or tweets, because I just don't have the space to get my point across.
So if I have limited character space, I will have to choose the most economical words to express my point of view, which are not always the most accurate words, nor are they always the nicest.
For example, in my recent flamewar, my opponent made a few tweets that called out Steve Pavlina for trying polyamory and subsequently divorcing his wife. He made such statements as "talk about having his cake..." and "not very becoming of Pavlina" and "just an excuse to sleep around without 'cheating'". When I called him out for attacking polyamory, he backpeddled and tried to claim that he was simply talking about Pavlina himself, not the relationship style. Notice how many characters it's taking just to explain all this?
So, the point I was *trying* to make was that if my opponent thought that Pavlina treated his wife poorly, then his comments should be directed towards Pavlina's actual behaviour, complete with evidence. The act of having multiple partners is not inherently bad. But the act of insisting on multiple partners while your wife grudglingly goes along with it, being insensitive in your choice of partners, neglecting your wife, or deliberately behaving in a fashion designed to hurt or antagonize her, well, *that's* a problem.
It's also not a poly problem. People like this exist. I call them assholes. Some use the label "polyamory", some use the label "monogamy", some use the label "swinger", some don't use any labels at all. You can call them abusers, insensitive, NRE Junkies, mentally unstable, any number of terms could be applicable. I prefer "asshole". But "asshole" gets a bad rap, astacit discovered when he got flamed for calling George Sodini an asshole and his commenters wanted him to be more respectful of the mentally ill, completely missing the whole point of his post (Sodini was an illustration, not the focus of the post). George might have been mentally ill (and most probably was), but he was still an asshole. My second cousin is mentally ill. He's a very nice man. George was probably mentally ill. He was not a very nice man, he was a misogynistic asshole.
So, in my attempt to say "look, if you have a problem with Pavlina, then call out Pavlina for his behaviour. Don't blame the entire relationship style or imply it was polyamory that was at fault. The sentences you used imply it was the relationship style because it referenced the multiple-partnership only and not any of Pavlina's actual behaviour towards his wife. His blog post about his divorce is very loving and considerate towards her, so if you think he screwed up in some way, be specific as to what he did exactly that was so wrong and provide references if necessary", I paraphrased all his complaints and tweeted something like "That's not a poly problem. If he did something wrong, say Pavlina was an asshole and here's why, but don't blame polyamory".
Well, this guy got all pissed off for me "accusing" him of calling Pavlina an asshole. I admitted it was my word and not his, and he simply responded with saying that "paraphrasing" is simply another way of saying "shit I made up".
And the argument devolved from there.
So, my long and rambling point here is that when I have to severely limit the number of words I use, I choose the most economical words I can think of, and because they are so economical, they are also devoid of tone and nuance and, hence, easy to get offended at. "Asshole", for instance, covers pretty much all bad behaviour without having to be specific. In 140 characters, that's an important quality in a word.
Which brings me to my next point: online text vs. speech. This is another limiting factor. My speaking style is nearly indistinguishable from my writing style in terms of word usage and grammar. But what ya'll don't hear is my hesitance, my pausing to consider just the right word, my desire to express a thought without offending, my attempt to soften the blow with a smile to indicate that I'm not mad or that I just made a joke, or my self-deprecating shrugs and head bobs.
Make no mistake, I am just as passionate about and solid in my position in person as I am online, but mostly what I am trying to do is educate, not offend. I know there are other words that I can use, and I've seen other people be more conciliatory in their responses, but that is not the message I want to send. I don't want to hurt people's feelings, but I also do not want to soften my position to something that I don't actually feel.
Take the idea that one should "respect all beliefs". I simply do not believe we should. Some beliefs are worthy of more respect than others. Some beliefs are just flat-out wrong. I don't think false-respect or patronizing my opponent is at all appropriate, nor is it something I actually feel. But, at the same time, when I speak in person, with my tone and body language, people get their feelings hurt less - or at least, not to a degree that they are willing to be as derogatory and rude as they are online.
My message *is* easier to take in person, but it's still the same message, and I feel it's an important message to send.
I can also read *their* body language and hear *their* tone online, so I make fewer mistakes in choosing the appropriate response (while still holding true to my position), and I can better gauge when I should be more hardnosed, when I should be softer, and when I should make a joke instead. This is my weakest area of debate and argument, but it's pretty much useless in a purely text-based forum.
So, yes, I am a bitch. I'm the one who wields the sledgehammer in the debates, and I'm fine with that role. As Heidi Anderson said over in her blog at The Fat One In The Middle and The Asshole Skeptic said much better than I can, there is a place for the sledgehammer and a place for the nice, soft, arts-and-crafts rubber mallet to tap, tap, tap away at the opposition. I'll even go so far as to agree with The Asshole Skeptic and say that the majority of cases require the soft taps. But a variety of tactics are required, and I'm the one who not only wields the sledgehammer, but who happily carts around a truckload of sledgehammers of various sizes and materials. There needs to be people willing to speak with passion and conviction, and there needs to be people willing to draw the fire away from the guys trying to make the point, providing that the evidence and reason is not sacrificed for the passion and the drawing of fire.
Yes, I'm a bitch, and I stand by my position that a bitch is required. But the limitations of certain venues, namely online, character-limiting venues like Twitter and comment boxes in other people's blogs, emphasize my bitchiness where I don't intend to be bitchy, and seem to add bitchiness simply due to the stripped-down communications that are the hallmark of the venue. So even when I'm not trying to be a bitch, when I'm not wielding the sledgehammer, being economical with my words and removing my vocal inflection and body language makes me *seem* like I'm being a bitch, makes me seem angry, makes me seem hurtful when it's not my intent.
And then when people react in what they perceive is a like manner, well, then my temper gets the better of me and I actually *do* become a bitch. Throw in my inability to bite my tongue and let an error go by unremarked, a problem that I've had since I learned to talk and never *quite* learned how to suppres and, well, I'm rather insufferable sometimes.
So it's really *difficult* for me to be nice. I have a practical, pragmatic speaking style & I require evidence and reason, and that is often received as "cold". I am passionate about my stances, and that often translates to "angry" and "hateful" (a complete contradiction from the cold-hearted-bitch accusations, but I get called both anyway, sometimes in the same argument). But when I cannot express my tone and body language, all that's left is the pragmatic writing style that my readers infuse with their own emotional baggage. And when I have to strip my position down to the shortest phrases and words possible, even cold and/or angry words are left devoid of nuance and are seen as even colder, angrier, or meaner than I intended.
It's really *hard* for me to be nice!
Now, this CAN be a valid tactic to show how one's arguments are wrong in some way. For example, when one doesn't understand why it's wrong to use taxpayer money to pay for a monument to display the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, we can replace "the 10 Commandments" with some list of rules from any other non-Christian religion and ask if it's OK to do it then? This illustrates the violation of church and state and the hypocrisy of the defender of the monument.
Of course, with true bigots, they still won't see it, but it *does* make otherwise rational people actually look at the view they're espousing. Many people simply haven't looked at the issue from the other side before.
But sometimes it's just another form of "I know you are, but what am I?" and "Oh yeah? Well, you're a big poopy head too!"
So I started talking with
datan0de about why I think I went overboard and didn't help my cause, and why there really *is* a place for the hardnosed bitch in the activism debate alongside of the kindly gentleman professor. I already know that I'm seen as much more of a bitch online than in person, and I have always attributed that to plain text with no non-verbal cues to soften my words.But I think there's more to it than that.
I think where I get into the most trouble is when I am limited in my expression.
If I have limited character expression, for example, I can't adequately explain my thoughts, which are often meandering and complicated run-on sentences. With enough repetition, I'll come up with some soundbites, like "I prefer to find spaces to fit the people in my life, not people to fit the spaces in my life" and "there must be something deeper going on" and "it's not a poly problem, it's a people problem". But that really only applies to a few concepts that I've had to express thousands of times, and soundbites are limited in their functionality. That's why I so often just post links to videos or other people's blogs in my comments or tweets, because I just don't have the space to get my point across.
So if I have limited character space, I will have to choose the most economical words to express my point of view, which are not always the most accurate words, nor are they always the nicest.
For example, in my recent flamewar, my opponent made a few tweets that called out Steve Pavlina for trying polyamory and subsequently divorcing his wife. He made such statements as "talk about having his cake..." and "not very becoming of Pavlina" and "just an excuse to sleep around without 'cheating'". When I called him out for attacking polyamory, he backpeddled and tried to claim that he was simply talking about Pavlina himself, not the relationship style. Notice how many characters it's taking just to explain all this?
So, the point I was *trying* to make was that if my opponent thought that Pavlina treated his wife poorly, then his comments should be directed towards Pavlina's actual behaviour, complete with evidence. The act of having multiple partners is not inherently bad. But the act of insisting on multiple partners while your wife grudglingly goes along with it, being insensitive in your choice of partners, neglecting your wife, or deliberately behaving in a fashion designed to hurt or antagonize her, well, *that's* a problem.
It's also not a poly problem. People like this exist. I call them assholes. Some use the label "polyamory", some use the label "monogamy", some use the label "swinger", some don't use any labels at all. You can call them abusers, insensitive, NRE Junkies, mentally unstable, any number of terms could be applicable. I prefer "asshole". But "asshole" gets a bad rap, as
tacit discovered when he got flamed for calling George Sodini an asshole and his commenters wanted him to be more respectful of the mentally ill, completely missing the whole point of his post (Sodini was an illustration, not the focus of the post). George might have been mentally ill (and most probably was), but he was still an asshole. My second cousin is mentally ill. He's a very nice man. George was probably mentally ill. He was not a very nice man, he was a misogynistic asshole.So, in my attempt to say "look, if you have a problem with Pavlina, then call out Pavlina for his behaviour. Don't blame the entire relationship style or imply it was polyamory that was at fault. The sentences you used imply it was the relationship style because it referenced the multiple-partnership only and not any of Pavlina's actual behaviour towards his wife. His blog post about his divorce is very loving and considerate towards her, so if you think he screwed up in some way, be specific as to what he did exactly that was so wrong and provide references if necessary", I paraphrased all his complaints and tweeted something like "That's not a poly problem. If he did something wrong, say Pavlina was an asshole and here's why, but don't blame polyamory".
Well, this guy got all pissed off for me "accusing" him of calling Pavlina an asshole. I admitted it was my word and not his, and he simply responded with saying that "paraphrasing" is simply another way of saying "shit I made up".
And the argument devolved from there.
So, my long and rambling point here is that when I have to severely limit the number of words I use, I choose the most economical words I can think of, and because they are so economical, they are also devoid of tone and nuance and, hence, easy to get offended at. "Asshole", for instance, covers pretty much all bad behaviour without having to be specific. In 140 characters, that's an important quality in a word.
Which brings me to my next point: online text vs. speech. This is another limiting factor. My speaking style is nearly indistinguishable from my writing style in terms of word usage and grammar. But what ya'll don't hear is my hesitance, my pausing to consider just the right word, my desire to express a thought without offending, my attempt to soften the blow with a smile to indicate that I'm not mad or that I just made a joke, or my self-deprecating shrugs and head bobs.
Make no mistake, I am just as passionate about and solid in my position in person as I am online, but mostly what I am trying to do is educate, not offend. I know there are other words that I can use, and I've seen other people be more conciliatory in their responses, but that is not the message I want to send. I don't want to hurt people's feelings, but I also do not want to soften my position to something that I don't actually feel.
Take the idea that one should "respect all beliefs". I simply do not believe we should. Some beliefs are worthy of more respect than others. Some beliefs are just flat-out wrong. I don't think false-respect or patronizing my opponent is at all appropriate, nor is it something I actually feel. But, at the same time, when I speak in person, with my tone and body language, people get their feelings hurt less - or at least, not to a degree that they are willing to be as derogatory and rude as they are online.
My message *is* easier to take in person, but it's still the same message, and I feel it's an important message to send.
I can also read *their* body language and hear *their* tone online, so I make fewer mistakes in choosing the appropriate response (while still holding true to my position), and I can better gauge when I should be more hardnosed, when I should be softer, and when I should make a joke instead. This is my weakest area of debate and argument, but it's pretty much useless in a purely text-based forum.
So, yes, I am a bitch. I'm the one who wields the sledgehammer in the debates, and I'm fine with that role. As Heidi Anderson said over in her blog at The Fat One In The Middle and The Asshole Skeptic said much better than I can, there is a place for the sledgehammer and a place for the nice, soft, arts-and-crafts rubber mallet to tap, tap, tap away at the opposition. I'll even go so far as to agree with The Asshole Skeptic and say that the majority of cases require the soft taps. But a variety of tactics are required, and I'm the one who not only wields the sledgehammer, but who happily carts around a truckload of sledgehammers of various sizes and materials. There needs to be people willing to speak with passion and conviction, and there needs to be people willing to draw the fire away from the guys trying to make the point, providing that the evidence and reason is not sacrificed for the passion and the drawing of fire.
Yes, I'm a bitch, and I stand by my position that a bitch is required. But the limitations of certain venues, namely online, character-limiting venues like Twitter and comment boxes in other people's blogs, emphasize my bitchiness where I don't intend to be bitchy, and seem to add bitchiness simply due to the stripped-down communications that are the hallmark of the venue. So even when I'm not trying to be a bitch, when I'm not wielding the sledgehammer, being economical with my words and removing my vocal inflection and body language makes me *seem* like I'm being a bitch, makes me seem angry, makes me seem hurtful when it's not my intent.
And then when people react in what they perceive is a like manner, well, then my temper gets the better of me and I actually *do* become a bitch. Throw in my inability to bite my tongue and let an error go by unremarked, a problem that I've had since I learned to talk and never *quite* learned how to suppres and, well, I'm rather insufferable sometimes.
So it's really *difficult* for me to be nice. I have a practical, pragmatic speaking style & I require evidence and reason, and that is often received as "cold". I am passionate about my stances, and that often translates to "angry" and "hateful" (a complete contradiction from the cold-hearted-bitch accusations, but I get called both anyway, sometimes in the same argument). But when I cannot express my tone and body language, all that's left is the pragmatic writing style that my readers infuse with their own emotional baggage. And when I have to strip my position down to the shortest phrases and words possible, even cold and/or angry words are left devoid of nuance and are seen as even colder, angrier, or meaner than I intended.
It's really *hard* for me to be nice!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 07:41 am (UTC)From:This is my problem.
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 11:24 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 10/29/09 03:14 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 10/29/09 11:59 am (UTC)From:In other news, I didn't know that Steve Pavlina had divorced his wife. :-( I listened to some of his podcasts, and I listened to a "guest" podcast of hers. I really like both of them, and am bummed to hear it didn't work out for them.
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 03:21 pm (UTC)From:I hadn't actually heard of heard of him before.
... well, I think I had - someone referenced his coming out blog entry, but it wasn't at the time he wrote it, it was actually not long ago at all but before the news of his divorce.
One of the things I wasn't able to get across is that I know nothing of Steve Pavlina or his experiments with polyamory other than his coming out article and his divorce announcement article, so he really *could* have been way out of line. It's just that my online opponent was not clear at all in where he placed the blame, but to pretty much everyone who read it and responded on Twitter, it *sounded* an awful lot like he was blaming the act of having multiple partners, not the act of being an asshole while having multiple partners :-)
His divorce announcement sounds very nice, actually. He claims that trying polyamory allowed he and his wife to more quickly recognize that they weren't happy and he says that he thinks they're both better off for it and happier because of it.
I think people put as much pressure on a breakup as they do on their monogamous relationships themselves. Breakups are not inherently a bad thing and ending a relationship does not have to mean it failed. Transitions are tough, but this is not necessarily something to feel bummed about and this breakup may be exactly what it takes to "work out for them" :-) (see that? A smile! I'm not trying to be mean or argumentative! LOL)
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 03:23 pm (UTC)From:The trouble, sometimes, with coming down hardcore opposed is that the opposition can harden, rather than softening to take in any new concepts. You know this, of course. It is that principle of falling into water from a short distance, as opposed to ONTO water when moving fast. The first is gentle enough that the water can accept you without damaging you, the latter is hard enough to kill you.
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 04:29 pm (UTC)From:But the goal of arguing on the internet is not to change the mind of the opponent, but to show everyone watching that he's an idiot, so don't follow him.
*That's* the role of the asshole. A mild-mannered, softer approach not only does not work on those same people, but it also doesn't sway the viewers, because the viewers are swayed by passionate and emotional speeches and pithy soundbites. Many a respectable scientist has lost his debate even with all the facts on his side simply because the opposition was more charismatic.
Look at the video of Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort on YouTube, for example. Thunderf00t's normal videos are great, they're filled with passion and reason and related imagery. But when he spoke face to face with Ray Comfort, a charismatic and highly deluded jerk, he was totally bogged down in the details and the "wishy-washy" language that is the cornerstone of science, while Ray seemed much more dynamic.
To the fence-sitters watching, Ray's position was much more compelling, and that's such a shame because he was so, so wrong.
But that's why there is a need for a variety of tactics. The Bitch happens to suit me best :-)
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 06:15 pm (UTC)From:I do, of course, agree. There is no one right way to argue, just as there is no one wrong way to argue. We are complex enough that getting points across takes a variety of methods - and venues. And, sometimes, a lot of time.
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 04:59 pm (UTC)From:I would have joined in, but work was crazy and so I didn't have the bandwidth. I'm glad you did.
I know it doesn't feel good, but it worked - he will think twice before publicly dissing on polyamory again, even if he still resents us privately. In this sort of activism, it is important to use both the carrot and the hammer, and (unfortunately, due to the way our world works) the hammer is a hell of a lot more effective.
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 05:19 pm (UTC)From:Even though I'm content in the role of the Bitch and being the fall-guy, I recognize my fallibility in confirmation bias and that I'm naturally going to want to defend my own position, so even though I try to be fair and admit my own shortcomings, it is still comforting to hear when someone supports and defends me, particularly other activists I admire.
I want to be corrected when I do something wrong so I don't do it again, but I also want to hear when I haven't done something wrong because it encourages me to keep going when activism is such a hard road and burn-out is so likely :-)
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 05:42 pm (UTC)From:Yeah, and taking on the task of flaming the losers can be particularly draining. The reason you don't see more activists doing it is not because it shouldn't be done, but because it is so draining and they've learned to protect themselves by letting it slide.
So yeah, if you're feeling the anger and are up for the ride, go for it. Sometimes anger is entirely appropriate (usually, when doing activism).
Good luck out there!
no subject
Date: 10/29/09 11:29 pm (UTC)From:Or am I just not that observant?
Or do I just not piss you off?
no subject
Date: 10/30/09 02:17 am (UTC)From:So even when we disagreed on things, not only did I have the chance to read you in person, but I had a chance to get to know you as a person so that I could carry that into my online interactions with you and maintain that personalized adaptation of how I address you :-)
Of course,
no subject
Date: 10/30/09 03:54 am (UTC)From:I do admire both you ferocity and your intelligence. I think that people should be able to take criticism (even harshly stated criticisms) and respond appropriately/respectfully to you. I have been impressed the time or two I've seen you back down in the face of a reasoned response and then interact well and intelligibly with the other person.
When they get all "red in the face" and flustered at your (potentially overly-prickly than often necessary) first statement - rather than with a "huh.. tell me what you mean cause that wasn't my intention at all?!" then I have little sympathy for them and think your vehemence is perhaps deserved or at least justly administered..
As to the weight of activism.. you carry the banner well! ..but that does not mean that there won't be times to lay it down and rest!
no subject
Date: 10/30/09 04:58 am (UTC)From:It is true that I often believe that my way of doing things is "the right way" because I don't often get into arguments when the topic is something that I believe can be done many different ways. If I really thought that several ways were equally valid, it wouldn't make much sense to argue about how my way was best. At most, I would either state that my way was right *for me* and/or that my way was at least as equally valid as any other way (like I do for polyamory vs. monogamy).
I know a lot of poly people shy away from anything that smacks of One True Way-ism, but sometimes, there really is a Wrong Way (not specifically in reference to our first exchange). Part of that comes from my science background, where I spent a lot of time with empirical facts which are either true or not true, regardless of personal opinion or even personal preference for the outcome. I also try really hard not to make declarative statements unless I'm pretty damn sure it's accurate. So my externalized thoughts are often only of the variety of "I'm right", otherwise I wouldn't say anything because I hate being wrong.
This means I often come across as arrogant because I "think I'm always right", which is not really the case. I just don't tend to speak up unless I think I'm right.
I'm pretty sure neither of us ever came around to the other's point of view during that exchange, but since it was clear that we weren't, I ceased arguing about it as a waste of time :-)
I appreciate that you have noted those occasions where I did back down when faced with a reasonable response, and that I can, and do, put aside past arguments and move on (when the topic isn't inherently a relationship-deal-breaker). Since I'm aware that I often think I'm right, I'm also aware that my perception of myself is skewed and that I'm a victim of confirmation bias as much as the next person, so it helps me to know that some of the claims I make about myself are verified from the outside.
I hate being wrong, so if I say that I will actually back down if given enough evidence, I like to know that my position has been independently verified :-)
no subject
Date: 10/30/09 10:34 pm (UTC)From:On another note, your link to "The Fat One In The Middle" doesn't work; I'll be happy to follow it and take a look whenever it's fixed.
no subject
Date: 10/30/09 10:42 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 10/30/09 10:47 pm (UTC)From: