Hello comrades, I read a comment on a post either on lemmygrad or hexbear talking about how most discourse happening was of poor quality and indicative of a lack of genuine leftist groups in the imperial core. Basically if there were patty’s with some teeth they would enforce party discipline and education and that would lead to higher quality discourse online.

I also read some of Lenins2ndcat’s comments which were very patient when they were interacting with users from other communities.

Is there anyway to work on like, an online party discipline? Or like having users who are very good at discussing with libs have a more concerted approach to their interactions? It really seems that much of us are often too aggressive and meme-y and as fun as that is it really isn’t productive.

I get that this isn’t how praxis or anything happens, it seems more like the way we engage could be more productive and fruitful in the long term and considerations like this might go a long way.

TL;DR Planned economy but for memeposting

  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
    0·
    1 year ago

    Tone policing is a logical fallacy. From Wikipedia (footnotes and links removed):

    A tone argument (also called tone policing) is a type of ad hominem aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content in order to dismiss a person’s argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement, a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion with which it is expressed. This is a logical fallacy because a person can be angry while still being rational. Nonetheless, a tone argument may be useful when responding to a statement that itself does not have rational content, such as an appeal to emotion.

    The notion of tone policing became widespread in U.S. social activist circles by the mid-2010s. It was widely disseminated in a 2015 comic issued by the Everyday Feminism website. Activists have argued that tone policing has been regularly employed against feminist and anti-racism advocates, criticizing the way that they presented their arguments rather than engaging with the arguments themselves.

    Literature-wise for grammar correction, see e.g.:

    Also look up:

    • self-determination theory
    • constructivism (and Vygotsky)
    • constructive feedback

    It’s also worth noting that most pedagogy is written for people teaching students who (theoretically) want to learn. That doesn’t apply neatly online, which means the pedagogy scholarship may have to be adapted and conclusions must be drawn with this assumption stripped out.

    • urshanabi [he/they]@lemmygrad.mlOP
      2·
      8 months ago

      Yeah I think what you mentioned makes sense. I would argue your characterization falls into the often encountered issue with any cartesian, syllogistic, or otherwise self-described ‘rational’ logic & reasoning [1]. Essentially anything with only 2 truth states, while not intrinsic, appears to be tended towards.

      I hadn’t actually encountered those parts of vygotsky’s work, thanks for the suggestion!

      [1] Emotions are completely rational, see Randolph M. Nesse’s seminal paper (though he is an evolutionary psychologist/psychiatrist so take what he says with a whop of salt) and perhaps watch a lecture by him, there are several recorded seminars on ytube. I’d have to find the one I like, if you want a suggestion I can def find it for ya.

      –

      The more fundamental liberal point of view espoused as far as I understand (please feel free to correct me, I don’t claim to have a genuine understanding of your argument) is the lack of engagement with the material reality of emotions, their function, and adequate descriptions of their specific role without dismissing them out of hand. This leads from the ‘Age of Reason’/‘Age of Enlightenment’ thinking, and deviates towards the kind of fantastical liberty argues by Stuart Mill, Madison, etc.

      Nesse’s explanation of emotions–which appear ‘irrational’ or ‘inappropriate’ insofar as they do not appear to give the best outcomes for the emotional individual–as ‘smoke detectors’ works quite well. It ascribes function and meaning and makes the debate not one on qualifications of emotions as something to dismiss readily. To clarify what I mean, let me quote you, emphasis and footnotes are mine:

      […] …aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content [2] in order to dismiss a person’s argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement [3], a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion [4] with which it is expressed. […]

      Instead the claim levied is erroneous on the parts I footnoted. The first [2] is the argument is the qualification of ad hominem which I disagree with. To keep it short, if the tone is relevant to the conditions in which the argument is made, then it is prima facie possible to affect the content of the argument. Arguments regarding it must be investigated, to use a phrase by Mao.

      Then the one highlighting the tone themselves may be pointing out a subtle and apparently non-rational aspect. The difficulty in understanding the claim by the recipient or other parties is then for the sake of convenience considered ad hominem as it is not considered central to the argument. You can see here and you must know that fallaciousness is circumscribed and used as a useful heuristic, they are interpreted and not as clear as for example you have used it. The claim of fallaciousness obviously needs to be argued (which you certainly did, I am not claiming you did not) and a simple claim towards it is not sufficient in the least unless we will say it is agreed upon by the parties engaged in argument. Dismissal by arguing it is ad hominem does not disqualify all arguments with emotions as a focal point, and neither does dismissal of the ‘null hypothesis’ or particular case necessarily lend positive enforcement to other theses espoused.

      Then I vehemently disagree with the categorization of ‘factual’ or ‘logical’ made, with a few qualifications. I understand factual as meaning an evidential claim with empirical evidence, or a claim which can be argued naïvely, and readily agreed upon. The common refrain is:

      1. Socrates is a man
      2. Socrates is a philosopher
      3. Therefore all men are philosophers

      I consider this for the purposes of an argument, to be considered true only for the purposes of the argument, i.e. to further elucidate some point. Another example with an emphasis on on the empirical aspect:

      1. There is a cat
      2. There is a mat below the cat
      3. The cat is sitting
      4. Therefore the cat is sitting on a mat

      Then if the fallaciousness is circumscribed as follows (again please correct me, I assume I am incorrect and wrong, I just want to show where my thinking is to make it easier for you to share with me & to correct and brainworms):

      1. Person A is making an argument
      2. Person B comments on the perceived qualitative expression of Person A, i.e. on their alleged emotional state, i.e. on a physiological process which intrinsically has communicative affects towards others
      3. Person B states or attempts to argue the emotional state has some importance in the context of the argument made by Person A
      4. Person A states that this is not true, that their emotional state is unrelated, and that Person B is committing the fallacy of ad hominem

      Here is where I have a problem. Stating that it is unrelated or untrue is the beginning of an argument or the thesis and it does not stand on itself, truthfully here I consider the statement [3] to be relevant. Truth or falsity may not be correctly argued by Person B, and it is not as though there cannot be an argument which is readily arguable by means of the emotive state of an involved party. For example:

      1. Person C states that they hate migrants entering into the country which they have citizenship of and which they reside
      2. Person C appears to Person D that they are afraid and angry
      3. Person D asks why Person C is afraid or angry
      4. Person C says it is not relevant in any meaningful way to their prior statements
      5. Person D asks why they hate migrants entering into their country of residence
      6. Person C states they take jobs away from the citizenry of the country

      Here we can say hopefully without too much disagreement that the argument Person C makes is rational and logical apropos. The oft quoted saying, “You cannot reason a person out of something they did not reason themselves into” is necessary to keep in the back of one’s head and with kept with due consideration. Why? The premises that Person C has are faulty. A consequence of that is 1. the logically sound argument (at least as it appears) and 2. the emotive states which Person C appears to have.

      Then how does one know if emotions are involved or not? As far as I am considered, they always are, whether it is to a meaningful extent needs to be determined in the course of argument. Any immediate dismissal is for convenience’s sake and likely due to faulty or erroneous premises the dismisser has. That is they do not really know much about emotions, and they employ a naïve rationalist framework in their thinking and argumentation. As materialists, the material conditions of even an individual must be taken into account, that includes qualitative states which may very well have a meaningful influence. Then [4] is rather unhelpful, as it precludes any discussion of an empirical affect, or, the material reality which can be observed and reasoned on itself.

      Sorry for the wall of text, and for the late reply, I just thought of this a bit recently and wanted to share.