“I have seen, with my own two eyes, a 19 year old white woman — smart, well-meaning, passionate — literally run crying from a classroom because she was so ruthlessly brow-beaten for using the word “disabled.” Not repeatedly. Not with malice. Not because of privilege. She used the word once and was excoriated for it. She never came back. I watched that happen.”
I’ve got a question, Freddie: Why? Why did you watch that happen? Why did you let the situation escalate that way? Why didn’t you step in?
It sounds like you’re describing something that happened in a classroom in which you were teaching. If so, you really screwed up that day. Because when a student is getting attacked by other students for making a mistake, it’s your job to intervene — not just on her behalf, but so that other students feel the freedom to speak and to stumble.
[Note: deBoer has since clarified that he was not the teacher in this situation. Fair enough. But as I suggested in comments, it strikes me that his primary complaint should be with whoever was, for the reasons I state below.]
If a pile-on like that happened in one of my classes, I’d remind the students that we all screw up, and that screwing up is how we learn. I’d discuss the way that what’s considered appropriate speech evolves. I’d discuss why “disabled” is deprecated these days, and I’d talk about the roots of the shift to other terminology. If, at the end of that, everyone hadn’t calmed down, I’d be shocked. And if people were still angry, I’d be in a position to direct their anger toward me and away from their classmate.
This isn’t hard. It isn’t complicated. And it’s absolutely not forbidden.
Back to deBoer:
“If I’m not allowed to ever say, hey, you know, there’s more productive, more inclusive ways to argue here, then I don’t know what the fuck I am supposed to do or say.”
Who said you’re not? Seriously, who? Give me a quote. Give me a quote where someone said that you’re not ever allowed to intervene when people are hurting other people with leftier-than-thou outrage. Show me where someone said that, and I’ll go yell at them, if you’re afraid to.
“Do you know what I’m supposed to say to some shellshocked 19 year old from Terra Haute who, I’m very sorry to say, hasn’t had a decade to absorb bell hooks? Can you maybe do me a favor, and instead of writing a piece designed to get you yet-more retweets from Weird Twitter, tell me how to reach these potential allies when I know that they’re going to get burned terribly for just being typical clumsy kids?”
Yes, I know what you’re supposed to say. You’re supposed to say that sometimes we all get yelled at, and sometimes it stings. You’re supposed to say that sometimes the yellers are right, and sometimes they’re wrong. You’re supposed to say that getting yelled at isn’t the end of the world. You’re supposed to say that screwing up is part of the process of learning how not to screw up, and that nobody ever got good at anything without sucking at it first.
That’s what you’re supposed to say, and if anyone says you’re not allowed to say it, send them to me.
Update | Oh, and one other thing, Freddie. You knew, or should have known, that using “you guys” in your post title was going to piss people off. And you knew, or should have known, that “herp de derp” was going to do the same. That crap isn’t cute. Don’t be a jerk.
Second Update | The original title of this piece was more obnoxious than was necessary. I’ve changed it.
Third Update | Being yelled at isn’t the end of the world. That applies to Freddie, and it also applies to me.
Could I have been less snarky in my post? Absolutely. Was I ungenerous to Freddie? Yeah, I think I was, on reflection. And I’m sorry for that. I was trying to simultaneously express my frustration with the parts of his post that set me off and reply constructively to the rest, and I should have let it sit for another round of editing before I pressed “send.”
So… Sorry, Freddie. I apologized yesterday evening on Twitter, and I’m apologizing again here.
Now. Having said that, I absolutely stand by the basic content of the post. I do think that it’s both possible and appropriate to intervene in situations like the ones he describes, though yes, figuring out how and when to do it can be complicated. Professors should stand up for students who are being hassled in their classrooms not just as a matter of defending the class as a space for open dialogue, but also as a matter of modeling the kind of generous behavior we’d like to see more generally. It’s absolutely true, as commenters have noted, that issues of social capital are embedded in these kinds of blowups, and that means that folks with social capital are often the ones who have the most ability to step up to put them on a better track.
Can any of us always intervene productively, directly, in every situation? No. Not always. There will be situations in which what someone has to say will be rejected by the person behind the call-out — and not always wrongly. Sometimes people need to be called out, and sometimes defusing people’s anger isn’t appropriate or helpful, and sometimes a particular messenger isn’t likely to get a proper hearing.
But even in those situations, if we feel that someone’s being piled on inappropriately — or even if we feel that the initial pile-on was appropriate, but we don’t want to see someone driven from the classroom or organization or movement — there’s almost always stuff we can do later on to mend the breach. We can, as I suggested in the original post, sit down with the person who was the target, in private, and offer support and context. We can also go to the person or people who were doing the targeting, one-on-one, away from the spotlight, and see if reconciliation is possible. We can work with the folks involved to figure out how things blew up and to try to keep them from blowing up again.
And crucially, we can speak out before things blow up, too. We can work to establish shared standards of behavior. We can create mechanisms for resolving conflicts formally or informally. We can create spaces where folks can ask fraught questions without fearing the consequences of screwing up. We can — as I did with Freddie and “herp” and “guys” here — point out potential sources of tension before they set anybody off.
All of that is stuff we can do. All of that is stuff I do. And all of it, I strongly suspect, is stuff Freddie does. So rather than having an endless public pissing match about the sins and virtues of the left, let’s do more of that. Let’s do more of it, and let’s do more talking about how to do it better.
That’s a conversation I’m here for. That’s a conversation I’m eager to have. And that’s a conversation that I’ll still be eager to have even if I get yelled at some more in the process.
Because getting yelled at isn’t the end of the world.
Fourth Update |Crucial additional context and conversation here.
106 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 29, 2015 at 1:14 pm
utopian (@utopian_01)
This criticism would be a lot more convincing if it engaged with more than just your interpretation of the second paragraph of deBoer’s post and a quick pull quote from further down. It’s a lot easier to engage with how you imagine a situation went down than the broader point about a hostile rhetorical climate driving out potential allies. Not everyone, especially those new to left politics, has the emotional maturity that you praised John Hodgman for, and pretending like everyone must in order to be a part of the left will all but ensure its continued irrelevance.
January 29, 2015 at 1:21 pm
Angus Johnston
If there’s a piece of his essay you’d have liked me to reply to that I didn’t, point me to it.
I mean, are you asking me whether the phenomenon he describes is real? I think I’ve made it clear that I believe it is. Are you asking me what we should do about it? This post, and the Hodgman post, and the civil rights post, are at least a big chunk of an answer. If you want more, tell me what you want.
January 29, 2015 at 1:29 pm
Freddie deBoer
Whine, me? Oh, honey, no– I’m as satisfied and happy as almost anyone I know. I am so lucky in my life. My post isn’t for me. It’s for the army of kids (kids) who I have personally seen, in the antiwar movement, and on campus, and online, who have tried to join a movement for social justice and been expelled by ritualistic character assassination. I’m fine; shed no tears for me. But you might, if you’d care about something other than grinding your axe against someone you already don’t like, spare a thought for them. You know? Engage some fucking empathy for the decidedly non-hypothetical young people who I’m talking about here. Step outside of your lefty avenger role and for five fucking minutes think about the lives of those actual kids. Not to score points; not to lord over other people. For their sake. For them.
January 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm
ktkeith
Good points, especially about classroom management. But you can’t deny that there is an atmosphere in the more theoretically-minded left that often creates violent controversy over finely-distinguished (and fast-changing) subtleties of word choice or social/political/biological categorization, including distinctions that not everyone on the left even agrees on. It can easily feel, even to well-intentioned commenters, that it’s not safe to say anything about anything, because even fairly innocuous substantive comments can always precipitate an attack over choices of words that would have gone totally unremarked by 95% of the population, and by 100% of the left as little as 5 or 10 years ago.
It may be that educators should be able to take the brunt of this (as deBoer certainly should have done, if this was his classroom), but that’s still not really fair to the educators. And the vast majority of people aren’t educators, and I suspect many of them feel the same sense of embattlement but don’t have the same position of authority to do anything about it, or want to expose themselves to yet more withering scorn from people they wanted to ally with, by having to fight for their own right to *agree with* them on the main practical issues.
January 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm
The scourge of political correctness on campus | An und für sich
[…] of the self-hating white man terrified of offending anyone — it seems, as Angus Johnston points out, that our dear Freddie is so paralyzed himself that he can’t bring himself to intervene when […]
January 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm
utopian (@utopian_01)
Both of those pieces concern themselves with people who have been in and around left circles for quite a while. Their patience and dedication are certainly to be admired, but the practical thrust of both posts seems to be instructing young leftists to “be like those people.” They’re good examples to point to, to be sure. Emotional maturity is a valuable trait to cultivate. But I think it’s also fair to expect some from the people who always reach for the most acerbic rhetoric first, which is what deBoer is alluding to. You don’t really say much on that point apart from acknowledging that “some people are jerks.”
January 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Angus Johnston
I am concerned for them, Freddie, which is why I asked why you didn’t intervene on their behalf.
Is the phenomenon you’re describing real? Yes. But it’s a problem that can be addressed in all sorts of productive ways, some of which I laid out in my response. If we want to fix the problem, let’s discuss how to fix it, instead of complaining that nobody will let us.
I’m absolutely serious here. Why didn’t you intervene in any of the situations you described? Were you scared? Were you intimidated? Did you not know what to say? Because if they went down the way you describe them, you could have done a lot of good by speaking up, and I’d like to know what kept you from doing that.
The questions you’re asking have answers. If you don’t like my answers, or you don’t think they’re sufficient, let’s talk about that. Let’s work on getting better ones. But for god’s sake, let’s not waste this moment on a pissing match about the title of my blogpost.
January 29, 2015 at 1:36 pm
Stacy
I love how this complaint that he’s too snotty & gotcha is so incredibly snotty and gotcha
January 29, 2015 at 1:37 pm
Angus Johnston
Utopian, I didn’t address the question of what we can do to influence the jerks because it wasn’t one that deBoer raised. Yes, it’s a bigger one. And yes, it’s more complex. But it’s not a question that doesn’t have answers.
January 29, 2015 at 1:38 pm
CM
Is herp de derp offensive?
January 29, 2015 at 1:41 pm
Angus Johnston
CM, I’ve seen conflicting claims about its origins, but it’s frequently used to mock people with mental disabilities.
January 29, 2015 at 1:43 pm
Tim McEown
Freddie is correct and you are not, in this particular instance. What you are doing is the epitome of concern trolling–scoring points instead of really grappling with a legitimate concern and then hiding it under a blanket of ‘tough love’. There isn’t an ounce of real in what you wrote, Mr.Johnson.
January 29, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Angus Johnston
Not even an ounce, Tim? I teach college. I work with student activists all over the country. I’ve had the conversations he’s calling for over and over again. The suggestions I gave him aren’t hypotheticals — they’re what I do when I’m confronted with the situations he describes. And frankly, in my experience, what I do works pretty well.
January 29, 2015 at 2:04 pm
Clarissa
Reblogged this on Clarissa's Blog and commented:
A very good post by Angus Johnston. If people find it so incredibly hard to handle routine situations in the classroom, they should work on their teaching skills instead of producing long melodramatic screeds.
And by the way, since when is the word “disabled” considered unacceptable?
January 29, 2015 at 2:05 pm
Kristin Lindsley (@bluecanary)
I also teach (and have a great deal of empathy for) kids from Terre Haute – I’ve taught at 4 different Indiana universities now in the areas of communication, media and women’s studies, and as pretty much everyone is acknowledging everywhere in lefty progressive circles discussing Chait’s piece, sometimes these really shitty conversations happen and someone gets absolutely demonized for asserting an unpopular opinion or using a bad choice of words. Potential allies and activists lost. It’s sad. Worse, people are hurt, sometimes significantly.
Who is saying there are zero problems (or even casualties) of call out culture? No one. No one is saying that. But DeBoer literally frames the issue as his discomfort with not knowing what to say to these wounded, naive kids or the disinterested veteran who has tuned out what to him is shrill sanctimony. A rhetorician at a loss for words, paralyzed by the impression that we’re not allowed to tell people how to be better communicators? I don’t get it. There is more to approaching these issues than a stark choice between confounded silence and empty “stop being so PC, you guys” or “tone it down, you’re alienating allies”. I have had these conversations. With words, from my mouth. It’s doable. Sometimes very hard. But absolutely doable.
January 29, 2015 at 2:30 pm
Nk
Freddie left himself open for attack by framing this as the dilemma of the educator.
No one on here disagrees that there is a tendency these days throw around accusations of racism and such for petty transgressions. It sucks. I’m a student. I’m scared to engage in discussions in political groups on campus. Arguing is part of how I learn and the climate is not safe for that.
I also think no one here would disagree that the commenter who threw down the “concern trolling” trump card is making us all dumber people. I think this is what people mean when they say “tone policing” and “derailing” are sometimes overused. Hey, sometimes it’s good to talk about the efficacy of tone!
These sorts of rhetorical tendencies among today’s activists are probably not good at coalition building. Everyone in this thread agrees this is going on, and has substantial negative consequences, but everyone is jockeying to position themselves as good allies by pretending you disagree. It’s weird.
I do wonder, though, were the students of the 60s, SNCC, SDS, etc, any better than today? Young self righteous people can be jerks.
January 29, 2015 at 2:40 pm
Angus Johnston
Nk, I think a big part of the problem in this discussion is that folks like Chait and deBoer don’t actually have any suggestions for how we can improve the discourse. (“YOU! STOP!” is not such a suggestion.)
The premise that young activists today aren’t good at coalition building is one that I’d strongly dispute. The premise that nobody should ever be scared to put their two cents in is also one I’d demur from.
This stuff — building and maintaining coalitions — is hard and complicated. It’s work. It’s tough work. I want to see people like Chait and deBoer acknowledging that and grappling with it, and that’s not something I’m seeing.
January 29, 2015 at 2:56 pm
Mk
“The premise that nobody should ever be scared to put their two cents in is also one I’d demur from.”
That’s not my position either. I think it’s important to create spaces where people who often don’t have a voice can speak freely. Part of that is me not throwing in my two cents all the time.
But maybe the pendulum has swung a bit far, maybe a lot of people are scared to engage. I have no tools to measure silence, I can’t prove this to you empirically. But lots of people are raising this concern, and lots of people are dismissing it out of hand.
January 29, 2015 at 3:00 pm
feministlib
This story is also a really good case-study argument for more effective teacher training for folks in higher ed. Too often we assume subject mastery equals the ability to effectively help students learn … both that subject and also the basic skills of higher-level classroom interactions, like how to discuss strongly emotive, politically-charged issues fully and deeply without injuring our “opponents”.
I had the privilege of being an undergraduate and graduate student in classrooms under the care of several masters of this skill, and I can attest first-hand to how much labor goes into facilitating a functional classroom space. We don’t acknowledge, as a culture, the effort it takes to successfully intervene … nor do we typically offer training in the skills necessary to do so as a matter of course in PhD programs. I hope that one of the things to come out of these highly-charged discussions is a call for more investment in training people how to passionately disagree without dehumanizing their opponents.
January 29, 2015 at 3:44 pm
Kristin Lindsley (@bluecanary)
Nk, join a debate team, if arguing is how you learn. (That is, by the way, not a facetious or dismissive suggestion – high school and college debate did wonders for my intellect and ability to communicate. It also gave me some practice with getting my ass whupped, rhetorically speaking. This is a good thing.)
I did plenty of stupid shit as a debater, though, and I got so called on it. (I still physically wince when I think of how awfully I handled a racism critique during one particular policy debate, circa 2001.) Speech acts have consequences. Sometimes those consequences do, in fact, involve being called a racist. (My response to the critique was racist as all get out; I deserved to be called a racist and I kind of wish someone had.) I don’t understand wanting a rousing and vigorous debate and at the same time not wanting to hear that you’re ever wrong.
January 29, 2015 at 6:56 pm
johnskookum
Watching the campus Mensheviks and Bolsheviks eat each other warms the cold lump of coal that is my right-wing heart. Carry on! Faster please!
January 29, 2015 at 8:06 pm
SGTYork
“And you knew, or should have known, that “herp de derp” was going to do the same. ”
Are you just pissy because you are in the process of proving him correct?
“The original title of this piece was more obnoxious than was necessary. ”
Thank you, that answers my question.
January 29, 2015 at 8:15 pm
Angus Johnston
Here’s the thing, York. “Herp” is exactly the kind of thing that’s going to set off the people Freddie claims to want to reach. “Guys” likewise. Neither is a huge deal to me personally, but if you’re actually trying to start a conversation with someone, tracking mud all over their carpet isn’t the way to begin. And “Herp” is tracking mud all over people’s carpet.
Now, yeah, it could be claimed that I was snottier to deBoer than necessary. Maybe that’s true. Probably it is. But there was nothing surreptitious about it. He pissed me off, and my tone reflected that. Any ire I was directing was directed at him specifically. Rolling out the “herp” is a different category of insult — it’s basically saying, “I know the standards of decorum that your group abides by, and I’ve decided to flout them.”
Now, maybe that’s not what he meant. Maybe “herp” was an unwitting transgression against social norms. I acknowledged that in the post. But if it was intentional, it was a dick move.
January 29, 2015 at 8:41 pm
Ben W. Brumfield (@benwbrum)
Would you mind expanding on your objection to “you guys”? I read it as a regionalism, and–while that can be alienating to many readers–have never encountered other kinds of objections to it as a second-person plural pronoun.
January 29, 2015 at 8:45 pm
Angus Johnston
Ben, a lot of folks consider it male-centered. Women aren’t guys, is the basic idea.
I tend to treat it as gender-neutral myself — I’ll call my daughters “guys,” for instance. But in a public context I’ll avoid it.
January 29, 2015 at 8:54 pm
Ben W. Brumfield (@benwbrum)
Thank you, Angus. One more reason to prefer “y’all”, then.
January 29, 2015 at 9:09 pm
Angus Johnston
I’m a fan of “y’all” and “folks.” Some folks don’t like “folks,” but I’ve never quite understood why.
January 29, 2015 at 9:21 pm
Hinksly
Aren’t you kind of proving him right in effect with this aggressive tone to your writing? I mean, what exactly are you going to do if someone is indeed ‘sent to you’? Have a wrestle? This is one step away from going down the whole ‘you know what you need mate, you need the University of Life you do’ route. I thought this was a ‘student’ outlet focused on learning and bettering yourself? How exactly are we supposed to learn from shouting at each other?
You justify people being yelled at when they’ve stepped over a line. That’s not how you teach people (or maybe it is?). Either way, it might be better if we stop and listen to each other, as we might actually be able to then help one another.Or, you know, we could just continue trying to assert ourselves like you seem to be…
January 29, 2015 at 9:35 pm
Lauren
I don’t understand why there is so much hostility to the concept of making left/liberal activist circles a welcoming, tolerant place for all types of people with strong social justice goals who are not paragons of perfection in their jargon and their thoughts. If a young politically engaged person goes into a meeting and uses the “wrong” words because he or she is not educated enuf in the acceptable jargon (I still have to work hard to understand “intersectionality”) – he or she should just “suck it up” and take the abuse and scolding he/she gets?
I was a young committed activist in the late 70s and throughout the 80s in high school and in college and grad school – we didn’t speak in opaque inaccessible jargon. I read left/liberal activists on social media today and I barely understand them. I try to educate myself but frankly I’d rather devote my time to the local community activist organizing I do with poor and working class people struggling for housing and helping them deal with the increasingly complicated process of getting unemployment benefits and food stamps–at least their English is something I understand. And they understand me. And they’re very good in spotting frauds, do-gooder phonies, people who don’t know what the hell they’re doing.
And I don’t have to worry about being shouted down and dismissed as some evil racist/sexist/homophobe because I didn’t use the correct words.
I find it amazing that today’s left/liberal activists would prefer to just throw people away-shout them down and tell them to leave and never come back-just throw them away like they’re worthless garbage because they’re not perfect in their speech. I see this on twitter all the time-perfectly decent people who may make a mistake because they’re not perfect-shunned, dismissed as worthless, permanently consigned to the garbage heap of evil enemies.
What a bunch of totalitarian assholes you are.
January 29, 2015 at 9:39 pm
Angus Johnston
“I find it amazing that today’s left/liberal activists would prefer to just throw people away-shout them down and tell them to leave and never come back-just throw them away like they’re worthless garbage because they’re not perfect in their speech. … What a bunch of totalitarian assholes you are.”
Hey. I’m actually right here in front of you, happy to have a conversation. Or, you know, not. Whatever. Your call.
January 29, 2015 at 9:48 pm
Coleman McFarland (@CEMcFarland)
I’d never thought of “deprecated” in this context, as a way to describe words that are still in use, but are on their way out for good reason. That’s really nice way to describe it.
Honestly, I find myself agreeing with Freddie on this one. Here’s why.
Let’s say that Freddie followed your advice with one of the characters in his story. The veteran who said “man up”, for instance. Freddie could have said, in public, “Hey, everybody, this veteran doesn’t know our lingo. So let’s cut him a break.” Or whatever. Put in your best-case scenario for a response.
Let’s imagine some possible outcomes:
1) The call-out person escalates and accuses Freddie of covering for the sexism of the vet. Worst outcome.
2) The call-out person doesn’t escalate, but just re-iterates that she finds “man-up” objectionable and considers it deprecated. Better outcome.
The problem is, even with the better outcome, it’s still likely that the new recruit (the vet in this case) will be massively put-off by this experience. No one likes to commit a faux pas on their first day.
I believe that in America today, that veteran character can stand in as a proxy for a huge group of socially liberal people who could potentially be moved further to the left, but who some people on the left categorically exclude because of their use of deprecated language.
I believe that the call-out person does a disservice to her own goal by using snark and vitriol in the first instance.
Isn’t there an argument to make around opportunity cost here? That perhaps the call-out person is also at fault for taking the wrong approach and alienating a potential ally? Isn’t it true that this call-out approach characterizes a very vocal segment of left-wing discourse, especially online, where many people may first gain exposure to the left?
I do believe some speech should be deprecated, but politics is about persuasion and not purity. We should meet people closer to where they’re at and nudge them in the right direction. Especially when they approach us in good faith.
January 29, 2015 at 10:25 pm
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
Wait, what’s wrong with the word “guys”? I’m supposed to start scolding my students for saying that now?
January 29, 2015 at 10:43 pm
5Jay
Nothing is more pathetic than a pair of middle-aged adjuncts with second-rate degrees getting into a slap-fight over perceptions of holiness. In fact, watching this go down is like watching homoiousios vs. homoousios be reenacted by Curly and Moe. My advice is lighten up, Francis. No one beyond your bathroom walls takes any of this seriously.
January 29, 2015 at 10:45 pm
feministlib
Coleman,
As someone who has spent a lot of time on- and offline trying to have cross-political discussions with people who reject my political views, my question is when and how IS a good time, in your mind, to speak up when language or ideas are experienced as harmful? We are challenged, on the one hand, not to be bystanders and let the fellow white person say something racist, right? But now, in this context, you seem to be saying we should allow maybe the first time to pass? What if it always seems like the “first” time? And then a student has gone through an entire program using problematic language he either doesn’t see a problem with (because no one’s said) or doesn’t WANT to see a problem with, and has no reason to change because no one’s called him on it.
My point is that, for people like me who participate in heterogeneous communities of discussion, we’re really used to being asked to hedge, couch, hold off, be strategic … and, like, when IS it a good time to speak up? It starts to seem like ideally maybe never, from the point of view of those cautioning us not to alienate. And I think that, then, feeds the emotions behind angry, combative call-outs that end up turning massively unproductive.
I see a teacher’s job as modeling ways of having conversations about hurt without getting to that point — or working through that point if, inevitably in one’s academic career, someone does experience hurt.
January 29, 2015 at 10:51 pm
wodun
The interesting thing here, is that someone on the left comes out to speak against how leftists treat other people. Wait, wait, not other people, other leftists. The behavior itself is not criticized as much as who the targets of the behavior are.
What would be nice, is if you guys recognized you treat non-leftists like subhumans. The tactics used to excommunicate people from society are wrong, even when they are directed at non-leftists not just when a fellow lefty gets caught up in the trap of social justice warrioring.
Getting bent over which words are used is an endless cycle isn’t it? Why by the time someone adopts the new vocabulary, it has to be changed again in order to always create the feeling of moral superiority over those who do not keep up with activist’s regressive vocabulary fads.
And I don’t think these people can be called activists. They are the establishment’s enforcers. They don’t speak truth to power, they act as power’s mouthpiece. What a bunch of rebels, who work with school administrators and teachers to accomplish common objectives. Conformists, squares, and prudes are better descriptors than activists.
Look at this site, it is called Student Activism and is run by some old af white dude who is a teacher. The cognitive dissonance must hard to deal with.
We have separation of church and state but religion is just another ideology. We need a separation of ideology and state. Teachers and Democrat’s militant activists shouldn’t be preaching their dogma from the classroom pulpit. A student’s academic success should not hinge on them conforming to the zealotry of ideological crusaders for whom the revolution can never end.
” Oh, and one other thing, Freddie. You knew, or should have known, that using “you guys””
Of course, of course but you don’t understand why your reaction to that phrase is the problem not the phrase itself.
January 29, 2015 at 11:08 pm
Anonymous
Coleman McFarland is right, because I HAVE been that guy. I was the one who spoke up right away to say hey, let’s not eviscerate people who are earlier along in the learning process. And you know what I found out? Call-outs are done by people who are trying to build social capital by tearing others down. You just embarrassed them and thwarted their plan, now you’re their enemy. And when you’re their enemy, they need to make you the enemy of the group so that when you’re punished they’re not the bad guy/girl. so they start undermining you in public and in private nonstop. I’m a big boy, I can handle jerks, but it undermines group cohesion and after a while I don’t want to subject myself to it anymore. It happens more and more these days.
I almost find it hard to believe as a student organizer you’ve never had to deal with this. I am going to be charitable and assume that early on you do a good job to prevent these sorts of people from getting ingratiated into your groups, but your flippant response to the scenarios DeBoer brought up really makes me wonder.
January 30, 2015 at 12:38 am
Belle crouch
Holy fuck you are all silly.
Really at least in SoCal you can be anything but old. Fat or ugly.
If you are any or all of these you are fucked.
Man you all just suck and everything you are doing and writing is counterproductive
January 30, 2015 at 1:49 am
Kazanir
Angus,
It is hard to come away from reading Freddie’s post and your post and feel like you are the one who “[is] happy to have a conversation.” (I guess that’s a tone argument, but…humans use tone to assess motive. And that’s okay.)
Freddie’s post, meanwhile, was in a tone of despair, with an open invitation for feedback. You could have given the feedback you did without all the aggression and snark and point-scoring and that would have been an actual productive conversation. Instead, you a) make some assumptions about the situation and then b) question his choices as a teacher and c) because you can hypothesize a slightly better outcome, you use this to dismiss the validity of Freddie’s argument. This chain of argument is a little unconvincing even *if* the situations Freddie describes could have been handled better.
Your whole post demonstrates an (admittedly minor) instance of exactly what Freddie is talking about. He says:
> “If I’m not allowed to ever say, hey, you know, there’s more productive, more inclusive ways to argue here, then I don’t know what the fuck I am supposed to do or say.”
You say, “Give me a quote where someone said that.” Well…people don’t ever say it in as many words. But when Freddie makes a post on the topic, there are a half-dozen pingbacks vituperatively criticizing him for saying so. Including your own! That’s enough to say it in not-as-many words.
Intra-left-wing tactical criticisms like Freddie’s are permitted **in theory**. But any such criticism is attacked, often viciously, in practice.
From very far outside academia, my observation is that these attitudes and this kind of vitriol is a part of a widespread problem that left-wing politics and activism have with acquiring potential allies of all stripes. The fact that it is mostly a tactical and marketing problem only makes the results that much sadder.
January 30, 2015 at 1:49 am
Interested
I can scarcely believe that a grown man can write this piece, or that two grown men can argue about such drivel.
One day, I hope, you actually will bring the whole edifice crashing down, and then you will see that the future doesn’t belong to people like you, with your amazing ability to sit around all day pontificating, but to people with actual skills.
Unfortunately, chances are that the very people you excoriate will continue to provide you with a living, and personal safety, and the edifice will remain in place.
January 30, 2015 at 1:50 am
John Locke
> Maybe “herp” was an unwitting transgression against social norms.
Is this real life?
January 30, 2015 at 4:02 am
Eggo
Thank for for this heartfelt post. A friend recently asked me a question that it will do a great deal to answer: “what’s with colleges lately? Are there really that many utterly *insert-ableist-insult* professors”.
Yes. Yes there are. But it’s nice to see you having your feeding frenzies in the darkest depths of the ocean, rather than the beach where decent people might get hurt.
January 30, 2015 at 5:52 am
Angus Johnston
Being yelled at isn’t the end of the world. And that applies to Freddie. And it also applies to me.
Could I have been less snarky in my post? Absolutely. Was I ungenerous to Freddie? Yeah, I think I was, on reflection. And I’m sorry for that, really. I was trying to simultaneously express my frustration with the parts of his post that set me off and reply constructively to the rest, and another round of editing would have been a good idea.
So… Sorry, Freddie. I apologized on Twitter, and I’m apologizing again here.
Now. Having said that, there’s some stuff in the post I absolutely stand by. I do think that it’s both possible and appropriate to intervene in situations like the ones he describes, though how and when can be complicated. Professors should stand up for students who are being hassled in their classrooms not just as a matter of defending the class as a space for open dialogue, but also as a matter of modeling the kind of generous behavior we’d like to see in discussions more generally. It’s absolutely true that issues of social capital are embedded in these kinds of blowups, and folks with social capital are often the ones who have the most ability to step up to put them on a better track.
Can we always intervene productively? No. Not always. There will be situations in which what any of us have to say will be rejected by the person behind the call-out — and not always wrongly. Sometimes people need to be called out, and sometimes defusing people’s anger isn’t appropriate or helpful.
But even in those situations, if we feel that someone’s being piled on inappropriately — or even if we feel that the initial pile-on was appropriate, but we don’t want to see someone driven from the classroom or organization or movement — there’s almost always stuff we can do to mend the breach after. We can, as I suggested, sit down with the person who was the target, in private, and offer support and context. We can also go to the person or people who were doing the targeting, one-on-one, away from the spotlight, and see if reconciliation is possible. We can work with the folks involved to figure out how things blew up and to try to keep them from blowing up again.
All of that is stuff we can do. All of that is stuff I do. And all of it, I strongly suspect, is stuff Freddie does. So rather than having an endless public pissing match about the sins and virtues of the left, let’s do more of that. Let’s do more of it, and let’s do more talking about how to do it better.
That’s a conversation I’m here for. That’s a conversation I’m eager to have. And that’s a conversation that I’ll still be eager to have even if I get yelled at some more in the process. Because getting yelled at isn’t the end of the world.
(Edit: After posting this comment here, I appended it, with a few edits, as an update to the original post.)
January 30, 2015 at 8:46 am
Fakey McFakename
I do think that deBoer is right about the counterproductive tendency along a small but vocal portion of activists to attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, and hugely counterproductive responses like public shaming. If this whole mess reminds people that the point of debate and activism more generally is to persuade, then that’s a good thing.
Because if your complaint is that socially and politically disenfranchised groups are treated unfairly, you’re going to get nowhere unless you get the majority and those in power to see things your way. And public shaming puts people into a mood of opposition, not openness to changing their mind.
Ultimately, if persuadables (as opposed to true opponents) are calling you radical or extreme, you’re doing something wrong. Passionate is fine. But if your tactics are causing you to lose credibility with potential allies, you need to find better tactics. The worst thing you can do is to create an us versus them mentality in people who aren’t already on your side.
January 30, 2015 at 9:14 am
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
FDB’s point was that social-justice-minded kids at Purdue read Gawker, and Huffpo, and the Atlantic, and the NYT, and base their discourse and behavior on their favorite bloggers at these sorts of NY/DC-based left/liberal media outlets. So when their favorite bloggers push (and clickbaitize) call-out culture — and this is indeed a huge part of what Gawker Media does now — the Purdue kids internalize call-out culture. FDB’s complaint is that this makes campus social-justice groups, at least at Purdue, less open and more clubbish, since everyone interested in joining a social justice group needs to know the right social cues and signals to avoid getting “called out” by that social justice group’s call-out culture. So, he’s appealing to some of these bloggers to dial the call-out rhetoric down a few notches.
Angus Johnston, I hadn’t encountered your blog before, and your work seems cool. But the word-policing you engage in so as to dismiss FDB’s argument is part of the problem. You can’t build an effective political movement around telling people that the phrase “you guys” is argument-negating.
January 30, 2015 at 9:31 am
Angus Johnston
Mtnmule, I didn’t tell deBoer that “you guys” was argument-negating. I told him that it was likely to alienate some of his intended audience. If he did it unintentionally, fine. Whatever. But if, as I suspected, he did it on purpose, I thought — and think — it was a jerk move.
Look, as I’ve said above, I use “you guys” in a gender-neutral way myself. I don’t personally object when others do so. I don’t see it as a sign of sexism, or of bad politics. But it’s a shibboleth, a usage that is understood within certain circles to be best avoided. So in those circles, I avoid it, because why wouldn’t I?
I have also, I’ll note, stood up for people who were being slammed after using “you guys” inadvertently. I’ve defended them and urged folks to cut them slack.
If deBoer’s usage was inadvertent, then my brief parenthetical describing it as “not cute” surely did him no lasting harm. If it was intentional, then I’m comfortable with my response.
January 30, 2015 at 9:38 am
Stephen Frug
Angus, I’m curious why you assume Freddie deBoer was the professor, or in any position of authority, in the incidents he describes. I read your post before his, and it seemed reasonable (if snarky); but then, clicking through and reading his, I didn’t see it. I can imagine lots of reasons FdB might have seen the 19-year-old college student run out in tears besides being a prof in the class. (Maybe he was a student in it — grad students & undergrads take classes together in a lot of universities.) Is there some reason you think he had authority in these incidents that I’m missing?
January 30, 2015 at 9:57 am
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
“Look, as I’ve said above, I use “you guys” in a gender-neutral way myself. I don’t personally object when others do so. I don’t see it as a sign of sexism, or of bad politics. But it’s a shibboleth, a usage that is understood within certain circles to be best avoided. So in those circles, I avoid it, because why wouldn’t I?”
Actually, from what you’re describing, the shibboleth is knowing *not* to use it. That knowledge is what gains you access to “certain circles.” And people who don’t have that knowledge are shunned from those circles.
And look, for a movement that is trying to expand its tent, such shibboleth-based, exclusive dynamics are bad! *Most* people take the phrase “you guys” to be gender neutral. And chances are that in like 10 years, the word police will change their minds about the phrase altogether — like they have about most words or phrases they’ve honed in on, and then suddenly backed off of, over the past 3 decades.
January 30, 2015 at 9:58 am
Angus Johnston
Stephen, I didn’t assume he was in a position of authority in any of the incidents other than the one I quoted. Various contextual clues suggested that he was the teacher in the classroom incident, and I proceeded from that premise, acknowledging that it was an inference. If he wasn’t the teacher in that classroom, then obviously he didn’t have the power to do what I’m describing.
But if he WASN’T the teacher, it seems to me that his primary beef should be with whoever WAS. What he describes is a classroom that has gone badly out of control, and a prof who has abdicated their obligation to their students. Yes, the other students shouldn’t have piled on, but we learn about norms of behavior in part by observing what is considered appropriate and inappropriate by people in authority — if I saw a professor being silent in the face of that kind of bullying, I’d take their silence as acquiescence at a minimum, and perhaps even support.
Stepping outside of the classroom environment, I still have questions as to why deBoer describes himself as a passive observer of each of the incidents he describes. I’ve seen that kind of stuff go down plenty of times myself, and frequently somebody — myself or someone else — stepped in to try to calm things down. To say that one can’t ever intervene, that one is forbidden to intervene, that one has no idea how one might productively intervene — all of that contradicts my experience.
January 30, 2015 at 10:14 am
Angus Johnston
Mtnmule, I disagree that standards of inclusive language are always bad. When someone uses the word “retarded” pejoratively or jokingly, I cringe, and I respond. I don’t shun the speaker, but I don’t like the speech. It’s cruel. It’s mean. It’s hateful. I don’t like it, and I’m not all that enthusiastic about spending time with people who DO like it.
Now, is “you guys” on a par with “retarded,” or a racial slur? No. And few — even those who object to “you guys” — would argue otherwise. But it is what it is, and so I avoid using it where it’s likely to cause offense.
Would it also be possible for me to try to convince people not to be offended by it? I suppose it would, and I wouldn’t attack anyone else for making that effort. But it’s not a priority of mine. I just don’t think it’s a big deal either way.
One big concern I have is with the idea that people who lack certain knowledge are shunned. I think that’s not a great framing.
Because it’s not my experience that people who innocently transgress against these kinds of social norms tend to be shunned. They tend to be corrected, yes, and sometimes rudely. But I don’t see a lot of “you can never come back to our meetings again because you used the word ‘guys’ once inadvertently.” Maybe there’s more of that happening than I see, but I feel like I’d be seeing a fair amount of it if it were a common thing.
What I do see, pretty frequently, is people being alienated from each other because they disagree about this stuff. A guy refers to a woman as a bitch. A woman tells him that’s sexist. He tells her it’s not. They argue. All hell breaks loose. He leaves the group, never to return.
That kind of stuff absolutely does happen. That’s real. But I’m not sure it’s always a bad thing. I’m not likely to invite you over to my house a second time if we spend half an hour at dinner fruitlessly arguing about whether “retarded” is offensive, and I’m not convinced that that makes me a bad person. We have a right to choose who we associate with, and to decide what kinds of conflicts are deal-breakers.
If Person A is a fan of language or behavior that Person B finds obnoxious, and they become estranged because of that difference, the estrangement is regrettable, in principle. But I’m not willing to proceed from the assumption that the responsibility for the estrangement is necessarily wholly Person B’s.
January 30, 2015 at 10:23 am
Zeus Crankypants
” told him that it was likely to alienate some of his intended audience,”
” I was trying to simultaneously express my frustration with the parts of his post that set me off and reply constructively to the rest, and another round of editing would have been a good idea.”
“But it’s a shibboleth, a usage that is understood within certain circles to be best avoided. So in those circles, I avoid it, because why wouldn’t I?”
“Now, maybe that’s not what he meant. Maybe “herp” was an unwitting transgression against social norms. I acknowledged that in the post. But if it was intentional, it was a dick move.”
Angus
If you have to go through life monitoring your every move with this knight-jump logic, I’m not sure how you manage to put one foot in front of another when you get out of bed?
Do you just stand there and freeze in place out of fear that the next words out of your mouth, the next unwitting body posture or the cut of your pants may be a trigger for some other human that you may unfortunately have to interact with ?
And before you ask. No, I don’t think my comment is “more obnoxious than was necessary.” I think it was perfectly obnoxious.
January 30, 2015 at 10:29 am
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
AJ,
You say it’s not your “experience that people who innocently transgress against these kinds of social norms tend to be shunned” — except you’re basically doing that to FDB in this post, calling him out for using the phrase “you guys” even though he is clearly using the phrase the same way that most people (including you!) use it, i.e. gender-neutrally. (And incidentally, given that most people, including you, use it gender-neutrally, it’s weird to refer to the prohibition against the term as a “social norm”).
Other terms, like the uglier ones you mention, are clearly in a different category. These are terms uttered with the explicit purpose of disparaging a group.
January 30, 2015 at 10:36 am
Angus Johnston
Actually, no, Zeus. No more than you are paralyzed by the fear that you might accidentally yell “FUCK!” at a supermarket cashier.
We all operate according to social norms. All the time. Everyone. The idea that such norms are bizarre or novel or absurd is just silly. They’re a universal fact of life.
Yes, they’re sometimes tricky to navigate. But where they get tricky is where people need to interact who don’t share the same norms. If you’ve never been to church before, you don’t necessarily know to take off your hat. And then someone tells you, and then you know. And ideally, they tell you in a nice way, but if they get mad at you it’s not a really big deal either.
Once, years ago, I was at a ballgame with some friends. We were hanging out, enjoying the afternoon. And I tend to curse a fair amount when I’m hanging out with friends. Roundabout the seventh inning, a woman sitting in front of me turned around and snapped at me about my language. She had a kid with her, and apparently the kid could hear my cursing.
Now, I hadn’t noticed the kid. I hadn’t intended to curse in front of the kid. But I had. I had unknowingly transgressed a social norm, and I’d gotten yelled at for it. So you know what I did? I stopped cursing for the rest of the game.
Because that’s just what you do, right?
January 30, 2015 at 10:41 am
Zeus Crankypants
“We all operate according to social norms. All the time. Everyone. The idea that such norms are bizarre or novel or absurd is just silly.”
Angus
Not when you feel the need to explain yourself in ever other paragraph on a blog. You’re self-importance is showing.
January 30, 2015 at 10:42 am
Zeus Crankypants
And so is my bad typing.
January 30, 2015 at 10:43 am
Angus Johnston
Mtnmule, I haven’t shunned Freddie. In fact, I’ve apologized to him twice for my rudeness and expressed a desire to continue talking to him. When I say I don’t see people shunned for linguistic transgressions, I don’t mean I don’t see them criticized for them. Of course I do. And I consider such criticism a natural and reasonable part of social interaction.
And again, my complaint with deBoer and “guys” (and more seriously “derp”) was that he seemed to me — perhaps wrongly, I don’t know — to be deploying those terms intentionally, as a poke in the eye to the sensitivities of his audience. Which itself is fine with me, actually. If you want to tweak the PC left, go ahead. That’s your right, and I’ve even seen it done wittily.
But it looked to me like what he was doing — and again again again I may have been wrong — was planting the “herp derp” in his post as a provocation, waiting for someone to get angry about it and call him out, so that he could adopt a posture of aggrieved reasonableness. It struck me as the equivalent of Republicans referring to the Democratic Party as “the Democrat Party,” just to be jerks.
If that’s what deBoer was doing, it was obnoxious. Not because the words themselves are obnoxious (although I think “herp derp” is), but because he was goading his audience while claiming to be seeking common cause with them.
January 30, 2015 at 10:43 am
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
“If you’ve never been to church before, you don’t necessarily know to take off your hat.”
“She had a kid with her, and apparently the kid could hear my cursing.”
Some of us don’t want the left to become like a church or members of the left to be treated like children.
January 30, 2015 at 10:55 am
LifeofMisAdeventure (@JlnFrancisco)
“The problem is, even with the better outcome, it’s still likely that the new recruit (the vet in this case) will be massively put-off by this experience. No one likes to commit a faux pas on their first day.”
If you aren’t prepared to make a faux pas or jack up when you’re going into something new, why are you going into it?
This is just silly. Liberals reject overly “pc language” but refuse to accept slight embarrassment when walking into a new setting? That doesn’t strike anyone as completely idiotic?
January 30, 2015 at 11:01 am
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
Yeah, to be clear, I’m not drawing attention to your “you guys” call-out to show that you’re a jerk — I’m citing it as evidence in support of the thesis that the campus left in the year 2015 has a tendency to go overboard with speech-policing. It sounds like you also feel that you initially went a little overboard.
I think it’s implausible that FDB used either of those terms with the aim of offending. He isn’t some hired provocateur at Breitbart Media, he’s a socialist grad student in a midwestern college town.
January 30, 2015 at 11:07 am
Zeus Crankypants
“If that’s what deBoer was doing, it was obnoxious. Not because the words themselves are obnoxious (although I think “herp derp” is), but because he was goading his audience while claiming to be seeking common cause with them.”
The irony is lost on you, isn’t it?
January 30, 2015 at 11:07 am
aburstein
Angus, it’s nice to see that you can engage on these issues politely and reasonably, even apologizing when you think you stepped over the line. Unfortunately, that isn’t the norm, in my experience, when dealing with proponents of the viewpoint you espouse. And honestly, even with the reasonableness that you exhibit, I’m surprised you (and your fellow compatriots) don’t understand how alienating it is to everyday, normal people to discover that saying something like “hey, guys” might be a social transgression (even a minor one). I’d like to think of myself as one who genuinely cares about eradicating prejudice and bigotry, but I really have no interest in being part of a group that believes that saying “you, guys” is problematic, no matter how polite and earnest they may be.
I discovered your blog a few days ago and planned on returning periodically, thinking it might offer me some valuable insight on these issues, but seeing this kind of viewpoint espoused has helped me decide not to bother coming back, unless of course, I’m looking for some LOLs at how far off the deep end SJ activists have fallen.
January 30, 2015 at 11:10 am
LifeofMisAdeventure (@JlnFrancisco)
@mtnmule Maybe. I wouldn’t know about all that. But the left does seem to have a problem with introspection whichever side of the pc fight you’re on. Everyone wants the other side to conform to their expectations.
Full disclosure, personally I think getting worked up about “pc police” is stupid. Million and one other issues you could be focusing on.
January 30, 2015 at 11:18 am
Angus Johnston
Burstein, I’m not arguing that “you guys” is problematic. I’m pointing out that other people think so, and that if you want to be a part of their crew, you should know that.
If you DON’T want to be a part of their crew, that’s cool. They can do their thing, and you can do your thing. Nobody is harmed by you using “you guys” in your space and them not using it in theirs. Nobody is oppressed by that.
The question is what to do when you want to keep using “you guys” AND you want to be part of their crew. In that case, you can do what I do, which is use it in circumstances in which they won’t be annoyed by it, and not in circumstances in which they will. That works for me. I don’t feel oppressed by that. I don’t feel harmed by that.
But if that doesn’t work for you, you can take another approach. You can advocate for different norms, or you can keep using it, and explain why if you’re questioned. Chances are you won’t be shunned. Chances are you won’t be yelled at, even. The worst that’s likely to happen — again, even in the circles where people care about this stuff — is that you’ll get “corrected.”
So do what you like. It’s really not that big of a deal.
January 30, 2015 at 11:24 am
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
@LifeofMisadventure
“This is just silly. Liberals reject overly “pc language” but refuse to accept slight embarrassment when walking into a new setting? That doesn’t strike anyone as completely idiotic?”
DeBoer’s argument is that subjecting potential new members of the left-wing coalition to such “slight” (i.e. “pointless”) embarrassments is a bad strategy for winning over new members of the left-wing coalition.
He’s also suggesting that the sorts of leftists who get distracted from the crucial task of coalition-building tend to be leftists from privileged backgrounds, who have the luxury of making leftism about “purity tests” rather than about political effectiveness.
Anyway, you can call that “idiotic” or whatever, sure.
January 30, 2015 at 11:37 am
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
There’s this big chunk of the midwest, and other places, where young people deciding between left-progressivism and right-libertarianism are going to go with whichever group sounds more reasonable. Sounding reasonable is a good thing! It should be one of the left’s main goals.
January 30, 2015 at 11:47 am
booktoss
Thank you for this reply. I found the original post to be self-serving and whining and so full of White, male privilege I was unable to respond with anything but sputtering and gargle noises.
January 30, 2015 at 11:47 am
Angus Johnston
MtnMule, what’s “reasonable” varies by audience. That’s kind of the point. I’m old enough to remember when same-sex marriage was considered fringe, even on the left, but a couple of years ago my daughters were flower-girls at a lesbian wedding. A legally recognized lesbian wedding, below the Mason-Dixon line. And what was fringe a quarter century ago is rapidly approaching consensus.
So while we’re being reasonable, we also need to be pushing boundaries. I’m happy that “bitch” is less common than it used to be on the left, and “retard,” and if you think I haven’t had the “PC thought police” argument about “retard” a hundred goddamn times, you’re mistaken.
We have to churn through a lot of arguments to decide what’s “reasonable.” Sometimes we change our minds — I remember when everyone was using “differently abled” — but we do that through discussion and argument, and sometimes yelling and even shunning. That’s the way we move forward. It’s the way we’ve always moved forward.
So I guess my question to you is what are you calling for, exactly? Because “other people should be more reasonable” isn’t a plan of action. What do you think that people who agree with you should do to bring the changes you want to see about? What are YOU doing to bring the changes you want to see about? How are we going to get from here to there?
January 30, 2015 at 11:52 am
Zeus Crankypants
“Thank you for this reply. I found the original post to be self-serving and whining and so full of White, male privilege I was unable to respond with anything but sputtering and gargle noises.”
I know. Those triggers can be debilitating at times.
January 30, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Stephen Frug
Angus: thanks for the reply.
January 30, 2015 at 12:38 pm
LifeofMisAdeventure (@JlnFrancisco)
“DeBoer’s argument is that subjecting potential new members of the left-wing coalition to such “slight” (i.e. “pointless”) embarrassments is a bad strategy for winning over new members of the left-wing coalition.”
And my point is what he’s asking for is just not possible. If you don’t want people to be hounded over mistakes that’s one thing. You can try to set behavioral norms or mediation to prevent this. If you want to setup a recruitment drive to introduce people coming out of high school to your ideology that’s ok too. But this? This assertion that the mild embarrassment that you can expect in just about every new interaction in life is something we need to be protected from is ridiculous.
“He’s also suggesting that the sorts of leftists who get distracted from the crucial task of coalition-building”
No, he’s asserting it. And it’s something he cannot substantiate. I’ve seen single black mothers get called privileged when they’re contemptuous towards “raw” lefties. Does my anecdote cancel out his?
January 30, 2015 at 1:29 pm
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
LifofMisAdventure,
I’m inclined to take FDB’s perspective seriously because he’s the one dealing with middle- and working-class college kids from Indiana every day, whereas I teach in a big east-coast city (as does Angus Johnston). Gawker, Huffpo, and the other media targets of FDB’s ire are also very much inside the Acela bubble.
I want those middle- and working-class college kids from Indiana in the left-progressive coalition. Remember, Obama won in 2008 precisely by prying such people away from the Bush coalition. And yes I place a lot of value on FDB’s unique left-wing perspectives on what sorts of broader discursive phenomena are turning those kids off from the coalition.
Maybe you’re college teacher in Middle America too, I dunno. Your perspective might be relevant as well.
January 30, 2015 at 1:58 pm
mtnmule (@mtnmule)
“So I guess my question to you is what are you calling for, exactly?”
How about: greater focus on economic issues around which a broad coalition can rally (e.g. the continuing need for universal free healthcare, affordable education, clean air and water, etc)?
I don’t like the “b” word or the “r” word at all — but I don’t mind if someone says those words and then votes for a more materially just society. I have no desire to alienate that person if I think he/she shares my economic, material values.
January 30, 2015 at 2:34 pm
Angus Johnston
MtnMule, a couple of things.
First, what I’m asking isn’t “What should the people who disagree with us be doing differently?” With respect, that’s the exact question I’m trying to steer us away from. If we could wave a magic wand and make other people do what we wanted, we wouldn’t need to bother using it on leftier-than-thou types — we could just use it to fix what’s wrong with the world.
My question is what should people who agree with you about what’s wrong with the left be doing to make things better? What are you going to do to address these issues? What would you ask me to do about them? What’s your strategy for beginning to fix these problems?
And the reason I framed it that way has a lot to do with your response. Because if you want to build a left coalition around free healthcare or affordable healthcare or the environment, you need to have that be a coalition that’s inclusive of people of color, women, LGBTQ folks, people with disabilities, etc. That’s the 21st century US left coalition — any winning organizing effort on the left in this country is going to have to reflect that. And in order to build that kind of a diverse coalition — particularly around a non-identity politics organizing agenda — the organizing effort has to be reflective of the values and needs of the members of the coalition.
Look at people and groups who are building diverse campaigns around the issues you’re talking about today. Are they saying “I don’t care if you call the women you work with bitches, so long as you’re fighting coal?” No. Because if they did that, a lot of women would walk. And why shouldn’t they?
The premise you’re working off of seems to be that if we woo the center by dropping identity politics, the coalition will grow. But that implies that the people who care about identity politics now are expendable, or that they can be somehow induced to stop caring about the stuff they care about. And I just don’t see any evidence of that.
January 30, 2015 at 2:35 pm
Angus Johnston
Oh, and BTW, the college I teach at is overwhelmingly working-class, 2/3 women, 95% people of color, and 1/3 immigrant. My students aren’t inside the Acela bubble.
January 30, 2015 at 3:15 pm
LifeofMisAdeventure (@JlnFrancisco)
@mtnmule
” I have no desire to alienate that person if I think he/she shares my economic, material values.”
If you’re centering everything around the kind of person who’s going to say ‘fuck you, I got mine’ you do not have a coalition. You have an alliance of convenience which is much more shaky. And make no mistake, these alliances either won’t last or they’ll lead to horrible policy like the coalitions in congress that handle “sex trafficking”.
btw I’m not an educator. I’m a 25 year old who’s finally started college this year.
January 30, 2015 at 3:52 pm
Y. S. Park
“Who said you’re not? Seriously, who? Give me a quote. Give me a quote where someone said that you’re not ever allowed to intervene when people are hurting other people with leftier-than-thou outrage. Show me where someone said that, and I’ll go yell at them, if you’re afraid to.”
I’m currently not in a very good position to make a detailed comment at the moment (and forgive me if it’s been discussed in the comments already), but there are lines of argument people do take in order to say “No, you’re not allowed to criticize the /way/ I say something.” It’s been variously called the “tone argument”, “tone policing”, or “concern trolling” — which were originally meant as responses to attempts to discredit the speaker via the tone of their language rather than their words.
I do agree that tone shouldn’t be the end-all-be-all (insert pithy remark about shoes and asking politely here), but people do take it as carte blanche to be abusive.
January 30, 2015 at 6:01 pm
Angus Johnston
YS, there’s a big difference between someone saying “you’re not allowed to criticize the way I say something” and someone saying “you’re not allowed to criticize the way anyone says anything.” One is setting ground rules for a discussion, the other is establishing rules for all discussions.
If someone says to me that I can’t criticize their tone, I have a choice. I can comply, I can refuse to comply, or I can walk away from the conversation. If I refuse to comply, the person I’m talking to can choose to overlook it and keep talking to me, walk away themselves, or repeat the demand. However it plays out, neither one of us is oppressing or coercing the other — we’re just having a conversation (or not having one).
What deBoer claimed was something broader — that the general rules of engagement in lefty discourse these days declare that one can’t “ever say, hey, you know, there’s more productive, more inclusive ways to argue here.” “Ever” was his word, and he even italicized it for emphasis.
And I just don’t see any way of construing that claim that makes any sense to me.
January 30, 2015 at 7:01 pm
Eggo
If you keep talking after someone “calls you out”, you’re just mansplaining to us, and deserve whatever social punishment we decide to give you. You need to learn a valuable lesson, so it’s for your own good.
January 30, 2015 at 7:11 pm
LifeofMisAdeventure (@JlnFrancisco)
Trolls out today -_-
January 31, 2015 at 12:24 am
Wow
Mr. Johnston,
I did not see your original headline, but I did not think your original post was so snarky as to require an apology.
DeBoer is a doctoral student of rhetoric – so one can assume he understands how presentation, tone and implicit and explicit messages work and how to use them.
Which means it isn’t wrong to mock the bad faith in DeBoer’s essay: Saying Chait is wrong then repeating the mythic narrative of political correctness as this all powerful thing that silences people. Thus tacitly saying “but he’s still right” in a weaselly way.
He then presents three tales in which Noble Figures are undone by PC Fury he is not allowed to even question. The smart well meaning woman who vanishes in tears after misusing a single word! The black man who is both athlete and activist banished from An Organization for expressing a single concept! The minority war hero who hates war stoically withstanding an attack from a rich girl with $300 shoes over two words!
In each powerful rage is unleashed by tiny errors and DeBoer can merely watch as people are “burned terribly” and left “shellshocked”.
In the first two stories the perpetrators are faceless and voiceless. In the third, how DeBoer knows The Woman is wearing $300 shoes and that she’s affluent is unexplained. The purpose of the Organization and why it considered gender relevant is unclear. What DeBoer was doing in these situations is unsaid.
A cynical person read this as intensely reductive narratives which are vague in order to omit things which might run counter to the moral. But these are not Fables but things “I have seen, with my own eyes”.
With my own eyes, tales three. And DeBoer can only look on and ask those who cheer on these tormentors, what is he to do? He doesn’t agree with Chait he merely want those who criticize Chait to answer for the world they have created, in which he is forbidden from assisting those imperfect yet innocent PC victims – The Girl, The Jock, The Soldier. Who will dare to stop herp derping and try to cure the suffering of the flawed yet pure ones? He predicts they won’t, scornfully anticipating their scorn, because, it’s implied, he knows they have no answers, only criticisms in circles they cannot look beyond for 5 minutes. Having been forbidden from saying the real answer, this sad 33 year old teacher will accept the nuclear blasts – be crucified if need be – although he will still be unable to save these kids. Thus endeth the book of DeBoer.
I understand you got a backlash and had second thoughts because you actually willing to doubt yourself in a way DeBoer clearly does not, but again: he’s a rhetoric student. He’s indulging in an anti-PC rant of Fox News dimensions while claiming he isn’t using all sorts of hyperbolic tropes – the most annoying being Unlike You, I Live Here as if The Campus was a front line in a distant war only vets can know rather than something vast numbers of people have experienced, documented by millions of students and a place they can visit any time. I mean how can you engage with someone who says writers who live in New York – one of the most college filled cities on the planet – don’t know what universities are like? How delusional and overwrought can one become and still be taken seriously?
January 31, 2015 at 6:31 pm
Angus Johnston
Just one quick thing about “disabled,” since it’s come up a few times.
“Disabled” is actually an appropriate usage in many contexts these days. “Person with disabilities” is frequently preferred to “disabled person,” but “disabled” itself is generally preferred to most of the euphemisms that were in vogue ten or twenty years ago.
Context, as always, is everything, but several friends with disabilities were discussing this yesterday in the context of this post and it seemed worthwhile to mention.
February 1, 2015 at 5:48 am
sdgfsdg
” Give me a quote where someone said that you’re not ever allowed to intervene when people are hurting other people with leftier-than-thou outrage. Show me where someone said that, and I’ll go yell at them, if you’re afraid to.” well, TONE POLICING as an expression is a shorthand for exactly this thing – people must at all cost be allowed to be as angry as they like, and trying to stop it is so opressive that the whole thing become a slogan. Google says “stop tone policing” has “About 21,400 results”.
February 1, 2015 at 3:15 pm
djw
Anyone who has followed Freddie’s internet career can probably figure out why he thinks the kind of interventions you discuss are “impossible”–he’s extremely bad at it, and comes across as extremely condescending when he tries to do it, and gets called out for it. He projects that onto everyone else because of a lack of self-awareness about that particular deficiency.
I’ve been around left-wing young people, some of whom are prone to overzealous of the kind he describes, for a couple decades now, professionally and personally. I’ve nowhere near the number of disasters he describes; they’re almost always not that difficult to avoid or diffuse.
February 2, 2015 at 9:39 am
Angus Johnston
SDF, I think I addressed this up higher, but maybe it was in comments to a different post. Saying “don’t intervene with me” or “don’t intervene this way” isn’t the same as saying “don’t intervene ever,” and saying “don’t intervene with me this way” is even further from the original claim.
deBoer’s contention is that nobody on the left is ever allowed to say “hey, you know, there’s more productive, more inclusive ways to argue here,” and even allowing for hyperbole I can’t make that jibe with anything I’ve seen. People do that all the time on the left, and with success. In my next post I and others spent a bunch of time talking about how to do it and passing along resources to enable doing it better.
February 2, 2015 at 9:51 am
unsafeideas
One of conclusions from this discussion is that outrage over choices of words and expressions is not about what is sexist/racist/etc. It is about a set of class signals you are supposed to send in order to be accepted in an elite club.
If you do not know “you guys” is supposed to be sexist, you was not raised in upper middle class and needs to be shouted out. If you are higher class, then you show that off by getting outraged over lower class speak “you guys” or “man up”.
Which would be fine of course, if that club would keep it all inside as their own unique culture. Unfortunately, club uses twitter/tumbl/whatever to mass shout at lower class people or accuse them of sexism/racism (which is often pretty damaging accusation even when it originated from something ridiculous).
Ironically, that makes social justice sound like a rich class yelling at lower classes about slights against social propriety.
February 2, 2015 at 10:02 am
ravisarma
It’s not complicated. If you are serious about coalition building, stop rolling your eyes (the condescension that you so obviously see in Chait but not yourself), stop snarking on others, stop generalising from anecdotes, ask the minority groups/individuals rather than use them as examples to make a point, see not just 33 year old war vets as “typical clumsy kids” and “brilliant, passionate, young people”, but also white liberal 22 year old women wearing $300 shoes. Follow your own advise. Be more friendly and more forgiving.
February 2, 2015 at 10:12 am
Sheelzebub
Many marginalized people who actually do prefer specific terms, etc. are working class or poor. Let’s not erase them.
February 2, 2015 at 10:16 am
Angus Johnston
Unsafe, I’m not at all convinced by the idea that these differences in language are class markers. In my experience, working-class activist students are far more attuned to them than disengaged middle-class and wealthy ones.
I mean, yeah, there’s in-group and out-group stuff going on here, and yeah, class does sometimes play a role, but to frame it as being purely about class strikes me as a dodge, and as a way to use identity politics (in this case, support for working-class people) as a weapon against itself.
To say that “outrage over choices of words and expressions is not about what is sexist/racist/etc” is preposterous. As a categorical statement, it’s just ridiculous. I can’t take it seriously at all.
February 2, 2015 at 3:20 pm
Riley McLaughlin
Mx. Johnston, your comments have impressed me far more than your original; perhaps an example of “strong opinions, weakly held.” So perhaps this comment is already outdated – it’s what I thought before I reached the end of this thread. Your response over time compares favorably to deBoer’s.
That said, here goes: your question of why deBoer doesn’t challenge PC bullying was the equivalent of telling someone with computer trouble “duh, just reboot!” – but without willingness to help further if the easy, obvious answer doesn’t happen to work. Your post struck me as rhetorical, rather than an actual inquiry of “what’s holding you back, and can I help you find a fix”. It looked a LOT more like a verbal smackdown for your audience’s enjoyment, and for your hit count (thus demonstrating his point).
Your initial response – just use your authority as the professor in the classroom – comes across as if you’ve never been in a situation where bullies had more power than you did, and you honestly can’t understand or imagine such a situation. Maybe white-knighting the victims of campus PC bullying has worked better for you than it has for deBoer. Maybe you’ve always had enough social capital that bullies back down, rather than escalate. (Into tenure politics, that is.)
When students humiliate a fellow student who says “disabled”, are they students whose first priorities are reason, compassion and justice, and are thus immediately willing to accept correction, such as your gentle query of whether there might be a better way to phrase their concern? Or are they students using outrage over vocabulary as pretext for a verbal pack attack, and as a means towards improving their social status with each other? Or some overlap of those two?
Here’s a test: what happens when a low-social-status student raises the same gentle question. If the attackers back off, same as they do when you question them, then they were the former. If, instead, they shout down the questioner, then they were the latter… and you have been confusing deference to your authority, with reason and compassion. (You would not be the first professor to confuse those two.)
Yes, this is phrased as a rhetorical question. I’ll check back, though, because you’ve taken lots of other questions as opportunities to go deeper, and I hope that you have a real answer, one that’s useful for professors whose students have mixed motives.
– R.
February 2, 2015 at 8:35 pm
sethblink
Getting yelled at isn’t the end of the world, but it’s also not the start of a productive conversation.
If the words “you guys” can start a battle, the problem isn’t the one saying “you guys.”
February 2, 2015 at 8:41 pm
does being welcoming mean constantly being “on”? | the feminist librarian
[…] correctness” (which doesn’t exist) and community norms. See this post, this post, this post, and this post if you want the […]
February 3, 2015 at 8:23 am
Angus Johnston
Riley, I was certainly more abrasive than necessary, though I’m not sure I was more abrasive than deBoer was in his first post — and certainly far less than he was in his third, written after my apology.
Having said that, though, I think part of the reason why was that deBoer was framing the issue in such a way that I was having a hard time taking his complaints seriously. Yes, there are hard questions to be asked here, but to a large extent his posts haven’t asked them.
I simply can’t believe that deBoer hasn’t ever tried to intervene in these situations, as he implies. Maybe, as others have suggested, he’s intervened and things went poorly, but if so, saying so would have advanced the conversation.
At any rate, my follow-up post was intended to provide space for that kinds of more complex discussion, and in fact it did just that. DeBoer chose not to participate in that discussion, but it did happen.
As for your not-quite-rhetorical question, I’d say a few things. First, even if you’re right that the initial pile-on might have been more a mechanism for asserting social dominance and playing status games than for advancing justice, that doesn’t mean that calling, gently, for compassion couldn’t have helped the situation. Compassion, inclusivity, and support for underdogs are all shared values in the left communities we’re talking about, and those values can be invoked to good effect. (And if invoking them is itself a way of playing a sort of judo status game, well, I’m kind of okay with that.)
I don’t know much about utopian theory, so this is probably a bungled restatement of something some scholar made lucid a century ago, but it’s always struck me that there were two kinds of utopians — perfect-people utopians and perfect-system utopians. DeBoer is the former, in that he wants to know how we can get to a world where nobody ever behaves horribly to a low-status comrade. I’m the latter, a perfect-system utopian — I want to know how we set up structures that ensure that people aren’t rewarded for bad behavior, and within which the targets of such bad behavior aren’t harmed. (I’m also a reformist, in that I’m primarily focused on making incremental progress toward such goals, a project that deBoer seems flatly uninterested in.)
All of which is a long way to say that if students’ deference to my authority gets one of their colleagues out of the firing line, I’ll take it. And that if that deference to my authority creates a space in which I can advocate for and model the good behavior I want to see, I’ll take that too. I don’t run an authoritarian classroom — in fact, I actively encourage students to call me out if they think I’m screwing up, either face-to-face or anonymously — but I don’t shrink from using my authority for good, either.
Hope this all makes sense, and I’m happy to continue the conversation if you like.
February 3, 2015 at 8:24 am
Angus Johnston
Seth, if you think getting yelled at can’t start a productive conversation, you clearly haven’t read this comments thread.
February 3, 2015 at 9:09 am
Tjalf Boris Prößdorf
My, the arrogance of the thing. As a child, I learned to be slightly taken aback when someone said cripple instead of disabled.
Nowadays, „disabled“ seems to be as good an excuse for bullying as any.
When Alan Ross first introduced his observation of U- an Non-U-vocabulary, he also observed that there was a constant change of U-vocabulary to designate Non-U-speakers – so as to preserve the exclusionary properties of language. Ask yourself: are you acting all that differently from british aristocrats who constantly change their manners and mannerisms in order to exclude newcomers?
Obviously vocabulary counts. Like it or not, these incidents give to outsiders the impression of certain groups being more concerned with pretexts for pack attacks than with precise vocabulary or – perish the thought – precise observation.
February 3, 2015 at 9:20 am
Angus Johnston
Tjalf, I’d like to encourage you — and actually, anyone who’s reading this sentence — to read Cole’s comment on my other deBoer post:
https://studentactivism.net/2015/01/31/freddie-deboer/#comment-447070
More generally, your suggestion that these vocabulary issues serve largely as a pretext for in-group/out-group dominance games received quite a lot of attention in comments on that post.
February 3, 2015 at 10:30 am
Angus Johnston
One more quick thought, Riley — I think it’s important to remember that social status within a group isn’t conferred arbitrarily, or purely on the basis of petty characteristics. “Social status” is also another way of saying “respect.” So yes, someone who is respected in a given group will have more room to productively criticize that group’s behavior, and to a large extent that’s how it should be. Someone who has been a part of a group for a long time, putting in serious work in support of its goals, advocating for its agenda, being supportive of its members — someone who has done all that will be heard much more clearly when they try to redirect the group’s energy away from behavior that they think of as harmful.
And that’s just a long way of saying that if you want to be respected by others, you need to earn their respect.
February 3, 2015 at 10:51 am
Sheelzebub
“Nowadays, „disabled“ seems to be as good an excuse for bullying as any.”
I have not seen a widespread trend of two-minutes of hate towards anyone who uses the term ‘disabled’.
Also, as has been said by me a couple of times, and by Cole in a very thoughtful comment, many of the working class and poor people you’re talking about are also marginalized in other ways. And they do prefer certain terms to be used. They also are not stupid and can and do show courtesy to other marginalized people.
I’m with Angus on this. I think this whole class argument is a bit of a doge, honestly. And it’s erasing a LOT of marginalized people who ARE poor and/or working class.
February 3, 2015 at 4:45 pm
Links 2/3/15 | Mike the Mad Biologist
[…] Wrong (and Right) in Jonathan Chait’s Anti-P.C. Screed I don’t know what to do, you guys (though this is a good rejoinder) Metro Trip Planner can be unreliable for planning weekend excursions Even the Secretary of State […]
February 6, 2015 at 1:58 am
Riley McLaughlin
“if students’ deference to my authority gets one of their colleagues out of the firing line, I’ll take it”
Well, I can’t argue with that. I’ve been an adult advisor for teen retreats which emphasize youth empowerment, and I try to step back and support while peer-to-peer leadership happens, but if I see something outright cruel happening, then I’ll do pretty much whatever it takes to stop harm to the victim. That can include putting on my Adult Authority Figure Hat. It can also involve wielding the social status which I accumulate as a long-time volunteer in those programs, which newbie adult advisors generally don’t have yet. Perhaps a first-time adult volunteer has the Adult Authority Figure Hat just for showing up, and then advisors get feathers in their hat as they establishing trust and respect over time; and those feathers can translate into social status and power.
On another hand, there’s structural differences between your interventions as a professor in charge of a classroom, and peer-to-peer interventions. As you can say, you can model compassion and patience and giving people benefit of doubt. That might be one of the more important things you teach to young leftists. How much does behavior change when it’s just students (assuming an on-campus meeting rather than a class session, or perhaps students staying after class to keep talking), and you personally aren’t there? To what extent do professorial interventions inspire peer-to-peer interventions?
I agree that stories from deBoer of what happens when he speaks up, could be useful. If the pattern is as widespread as he claims, then others will also have stories. My experience suggests that for every person willing to question or challenge a behavior, there may be several others who aren’t willing to speak first, but who might support or echo if someone else dares to speak first.
Your point about perfect-people utopians and perfect-system utopians reminds me somehow of this article. Dunno how well it applies, since geek culture and leftist culture are non-identical, but it shines light on how far some people will go to avoid framing themselves as an excluder or an ostracizer, and why, and with what consequences. Also reminds me of Cole’s willingness to unwelcome a bro-activist, if the alternative is tolerating him with the side effect of women quietly and steadily leaving.
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
February 6, 2015 at 3:20 pm
brightearth
While we privileged folks here debate whether ‘you guys’ is hurtful, inclusive, or a ham sandwich, a thousand more innocent civilians were just brutally killed by Assad, ISIS or the other asshole next door. I’m certain all 9.5 million displaced Syrians are glued to their macbooks waiting with baited breath for the next linguistic critique.
All this seems a bit like a cop stopping outside an apartment fire to write a parking ticket and then provide an insightful lecture on why car tires must be no more than 12 inches from the curb.
#macroaggression
February 6, 2015 at 3:24 pm
Angus Johnston
And what a relief it must be to those Syrians that you were here to provide it, Bright.
February 15, 2015 at 1:56 am
relationalweb
That was an interesting reply to brightearth, Angus. You could’ve just let it rolled off, but instead you took the low road. Jerk response to a jerk comment.
Tone matters, I thought. Out the window, though, with ‘inclusiveness’ the moment you are threatened. I thought being ‘yelled at’ was no big deal? So why respond in kind? Bright was probably exasperated. Fed up with your lawyerliness, your legalistic elaborations. Maybe. But being a good activist, it could have been an opportunity to win a heart, not defeat a mind.
But you’ve got a comeback for everything. Your immediate verbal reflex with deBoear was to be a jerk, to be a know it all. Then after all of the backtracking and apologies, and showing us what a good guy you (presumably really) are, you immediately respond with snark and smugness to bright. (!) Bad habits…
Can you NOT see how you appear to others? Do you really think you are this persuasive, this verbally superior? You can’t see the smugness? A clever retort is not persuasive!
That was a moment YOU could have shifted the tone in the grandest sense. In a way that would’ve really circumvented all of the bottled up frustration and anger on both sides, the exasperation with linguistic minutiae. Instead of policing micro-content, or the ‘tone’ of others, you could have taken the initiative and responded with TRUE inclusiveness and a generosity of spirit. You could have changed YOUR tone. What would you have lost? You might have softened bright’s anger.
Please, check your tone. THIS is deBoer’s point! You’re good with words, and you are trying to be rational and to avoid hurting others. I can see it. At times, I really believed it from you. Then, swiftly, I didn’t.
You seem to slip, to fall back into equating communication with content (e.g., ‘guys,’ ‘herp,’) ironically. You don’t seem to be able to understand the tone you yourself are generating – towards the people you are trying to recruit/debate.
This is my ultimate problem with ‘tone policing’ – those who do it, actually aren’t especially good at it. They’re better at being lawyers than they are bonding with others, than they are at actually fostering others to feel included. PC people seem to think that ‘not offending a marginalized group’ means others not saying harmful things. That’s just the beginning. You just seem like a scold; at times, a relaxed and reasonable one. But always the professor, the expert.
Real inclusion goes beyond avoiding offending others; it actually lures, attracts them in. Why can’t we try to work on THAT more, instead of the minimalist approach that scolds minutiae? Approach others with a big heart. Make your side appealing, really attractive. That, after all, is what inspires and excites – that we primates don’t have to be narrow, bigoted, triabalist buffoons. that we transcend our local prejudices and work, really work – to have the big tent. Conservatives struggle with this, I think, because I think they just don’t want it, usually. On the other side, WE really do want it. You were at a lesbian wedding – a joyous, beautiful moment of the nobility of our side. It’s a tall order, to be inclusive in that way – but that’s what is so persuasive – to me. If I sensed, Angus, that you approached me in that way, I’d be much quicked to say “You’re right! Why WOULD I want to exclude women who dislike ‘guys’? Instead of snark, legalism, cleverness, scolding, however calmly, and patiently expressed.
February 16, 2015 at 5:27 pm
Angus Johnston
I can’t please everyone, RW, and I gave up trying a long time ago. Brightearth’s comment struck me as self-refuting — if it’s stupid for us to be arguing about this crap while Syrians are dying, how much more stupid must it be for Bright to take time away from his or her work to save them to leave a snotty comment on a week-old blogpost. But whatever. Stupid comment, stupid joke. Mea culpa.
If you want to talk, let’s talk.
February 19, 2015 at 9:38 am
LifeofMisAdventure (@JlnFrancisco)
Ok, so I’m going to put this out there. Leftists seem to hate it when anyone ever bites back. Can’t help but think that’s why they’re so ineffective at redressing wrongs. They’re as harsh to the victim as they are the victimizer.
May 15, 2015 at 11:44 am
teatimewithmissb
I just found this on accident and I have to say that it is absolutely fascinating and frightening to live in a world so bogged down in the minutiae of group labeling that they ignore intentions behind the words or the hearts of the people speaking them. It is a clear sign that the social justice movement has lost its soul when they cannot acknowledge those who are kind without lecturing them on their presentation. PC is now a lifeless husk kept in expansion by anger and the feelings of self-righteous outrage rather than the love, compassion,and understanding that it was born from.
I have recently stopped using “feminism” as a term I want applied to myself because it, too, has lost meaning, as has the world “liberal”. It is something I actually mourn because at one point in time both of these words had power and meaning for me.
September 11, 2015 at 11:47 pm
TrueLiberal
I am a libertarian in the U. S. Libertarian Party sense. This discussion make me feel better about the prospects for my branch of the liberal tradition.
September 28, 2015 at 11:44 pm
Rick
I have no college degree. I don’t understand half the words in some of the comments. Christ, I’m not even a native speaker.I just happened to end up at this post by sheer curiosity. But might I just ask one thing? What is the issue here? Why are people offended by downright every word that points out a specific aspect of someone or something or someplace. I understand the march for equal rights, I plee for no to racism. But c’mon “y’all”. This is starting to get sad. Instead of this never ending fight for acceptence and equality. Can’t we all just get over ourselves and stop taking everything as an offense and instead go back to the time where you get respect if you show respect? Don’t throw a tantrum if someone says something that offends you, ask them politely not to say this in your attendance and MOVE ON.
I guess I’m out of place here. But hey, it’s just words after all, no foul done.
Greetings from the Netherlands