The fact that topics can become touchy.

glennmagusharvey

Alternatively, the fact that it's difficult to divorce one's emotional reactions when discussing certain topics.

BlackElephant

That can get pretty frustrating. Especially if someone gets so emotional they don't hear what you said (or the other way around).

Sometimes, I like to keep a rubber band to snap myself with when I start getting too emotional. It doesn't always work, so I should really stop doing it.

Bee

I just have this as the default mental image of everyone I meet on the internet.

LouieW

I am not sure that the issue is emotional reactions per se. For example, I have heard some say that stigmatizing emotional expressions tends to unfairly discredit emotions and the women traditionally associated with them since emotions can sometimes be pretty helpful clues that something bad is going on.

Plus, I am guessing that it might not be so fun to have conversations with people who completely refrain from expressing emotions because of how cold they would sound, especially when you happen to be talking about something related to a human tragedy. Maybe that is obvious though.

That being said, I agree that it would be nice if people would more calmly and reasonably discuss certain controversial topics like religion and politics. I figure that not talking about them in order to avoid heated arguments may work sometimes, but I am not really sure when it is better to avoid them and when it is better to discuss them so people understand each other better.

InsanityAddict

Alternative alternative title: why it is so difficult to find effective social justice blogs.

People's need to vent and share their experiences doesn't coincide with fostering a debate or telling a coherent story. This is fine: discounting someone's opinion based on tone is one of the weakest silencing tactics in the book, but once the patterns in the frothing emerge, Imma move on to a place that assumes a more laidback and educative stance.

MadassAlex

 This is fine: discounting someone's opinion based on tone is one of the weakest silencing tactics in the book

I don't think this is true, because things are only ever written for some kind of audience. If your piece of writing limits or even alienates its potential audience due to its tone, then there's been a severe technical mistake in the interest of venting. This consideration -- or the lack thereof -- is what makes Tumblr an echo chamber, because most bloggers write in such a way that only people who already share their opinion will agree with them or be given a pause for thought; those who think along other lines will be downright insulted and fence-sitters will be pushed away, which is actively detrimental to the cause. 

In short, the kind of hateful vitriol one finds in social justice blogs, allegedly written for the sake of tolerance, promotes what may well be excellent views in a way that destroys any kind of dialogue or mutual growth. This is why, as a far leftist, I've very much come to resent the broader far left. On the internet, leftists can be and often are just as hateful as homophobic, misogynist, racist right-wingers; in real life, my experiences with leftist organisations revealed them to be impotent and unwilling to innovate in their strategies. It has been a long time since pamphlets and selling leftist handbooks has been effective, if that strategy was indeed ever any good. 

As things stand, conservative ideologies are halfway around the world before leftist ones have their boots tied. A large part of this is that power currently rests on the right hand side of the political spectrum because that's where the power lies fiscally, militarily and socially, so the left needs stronger, more inclusive strategies in order to convince people that doing things differently -- and in their own interests -- is worth a shot. Tumblr blogs and their ilk, to my mind, are actively contributing to a collapse of leftist efforts and largely because of the tone they use. If people legitimately want to convince others of the merit in their views, then they need to be inclusive and educational rather than aggressive and alienating. 

InsanityAddict

Relevant: www.socialjusticeleague.net/2012/04/the-revolution-will-not-be-polite-the-issue-of-nice-versus-good

I see your point, but what's to say the bullying tactics that are conflated with the right here can't be used by the left(much as I dislike seeing either as a homogenous monolith) to intimidate the silent middle into accepting their ideas? It might sound like bad taste, but take the Stonewall Riots vs. the predecessors of pride marches in case of how effective they were in enacting emancipation.

In the end, it's a struggle on different fronts: both moderate and radical elements have their place.

glennmagusharvey

I have always been of the opinion that people have to be given the chance to decide for themselves.  You can't just heap "convincing" on them and expect them to believe you.  They have to want to agree with you; otherwise you're just shouting someone into submission.

MadassAlex

Exactly. Leftist policy has to be legitimised rationally and democratically. Getting people to accept our ideas is a hollow victory if it's the result of bullying and pressure; instead, the idea is to convince people that such ideas are right for them, and for most others, as the most mutually beneficial option. One thing we cannot afford to do is stoop, because that's a slippery slope -- "the end justifies the means" and all that. I would rather we didn't even start that kind of thing, and maintained the high ground. 

InsanityAddict

Idealistic, and should be the first go-to before more extreme measures are applied. In my opinion, it varies from situation to situation(a nebulous position, meknows): enough peeps don't want to change a view out of spite, bullheadedness, agendaism or another factor that you can't debate your way around. It's why we have anti-discrimination laws. On a more slacktivist level, public shaming and social exclusion would be the appropriate tool to deal with such cases: even if this has an adverse effect, it at least fortifies the position of the marginalized. Not ideal, but an acceptable compromise.

Alkthash

IA - how much it fortifies the beliefs of the person being marginalized depends a lot on how much they care about what the other people think of them. Or rather, if somebody they care about calls them on their bullshit , they might reconsider.

InsanityAddict

I meant public shaming and social exclusion of the oppressor, not the oppressed. Fortifying the position meant the position in society by attacking the bigots. I guess it could work the other way around if you have a marginalized person verge into 'reverse' discrimination, but that often reeks of the privilege machine putting peeps in their place.