One of the things that I've noticed is that, should one persist in a technical argument and in holding a locally-unpopular view that is actually difficult to disagree with on a technical basis, conversation will eventually shift from the technical merits of that argument to the tone of one's viewpoint, and eventually to one's worth as a person. Which makes it more difficult to keep expressing the technical viewpoint in the group, which is rather the point of the shaming exercise. This is group dynamics and human nature, basically. It's not what you say, it's not whether it's right, it's whether saying it is politically inconvenient to the group. The individual isn't the issue; the group is. And tone police are a part of that group process. L. if we're rotating sergeant-at-arms, I'm all for them spinning in their graves. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood On Tuesday, 3 September 2019, 11:56:58 GMT+10, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On 9/2/19 9:24 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > It seems to me that if the goal is to have free and constructive > discussion, it's important to acknowledge that some language/"tone" > can militate against that happening, and create a hostile environment > in which some participants may (and, as we know from experience, do) > choose not to speak, choose not to continue to participate, and so on. I do acknowledge that this can happen. But I don't think it's a justification for discouraging people whose "tone" one does not like, or for favoring the contributions of those whose "tone" seems more pleasing. Rather I think we need to try harder to understand those whose "tone" is harder to deal with, because quite often those people are the ones who have rare and valuable insight. Part of the problem is that preferences for "tone" are nowhere nearly objective. It's just another kind of prejudice. I suspect we all have such prejudices, but the thing to do is to try to work past them rather than insist that others cater to our prejudices. [..]
