On tone arguments

Post Reply New Topic

Members of marginalized groups are often angry about the situations they find themselves in, that they find their fellow members in. Those members may at times express that anger, as well as frustration, and that's OK.

IMO, anyone who withholds their support for bettering the circumstances of a marginalized group, which they say is because they've interacted with members of that group who have expressed anger and so have recoiled from support, and who is not a member of that marginalized group themselves, is a card-carrying member of the oppressor class.

Tone arguments, "I'd support you more if you just didn't come across as so angry," are unacceptable and serve no purpose other than to derail the conversation at hand.

Being angry or attacking people doesn't really serve much of a purpose either, respond in kind if you have to but if you're actually trying to change opinions then the saying that you attract more flies with honey than you do vinegar rings true. It doesn't mean your argument or whatever is invalid but framing it that way is more preaching to the converted, people will naturally dig their heels in if they feel they are being attacked and not really listen to what you have to say. Engaging each other is always a good thing.

If you can get such engagement. Most people, particularly the privileged, are not interested in discussing the plight of marginalized groups. So if you come in all polite and quiet, you just get ignored. This tends to increase the frustration and anger of members of those groups, which they begin to express. In many ways, it can be more effective in getting you heard. Of course, you may then be criticized for it.

Here's the thing: Privileged people who use the tone argument were never really interested in discussing the topic in the first place, and would rather that such matters be hidden away. Of course, if the person is polite and quiet, then you can simply ignore them, while if they're angry, you get to use that as an excuse to still ignore them.

This also brings to mind what Gandhi mentioned, about the stages that civil rights movements go through:



When they ignore you, that may be the polite and quiet stage, then when they fight you, that might be the anger and frustration stage. Remain persistent, however, and you will win as their hypocrisies are laid bare and they have no choice but to recant their prior prejudices.

Basically, anger and frustration, and their expression, do not occur in isolation but as part of a greater whole, a context. Privileged people will often use all sorts of tactics to avoid having to deal with the plight of marginalized groups.

You're definitely right that there are lots of people that rationalize their own beliefs based on the 'tone' of those that they disagree with but for the sake of a discussion forum it is better to stick to trying to engage people obviously. Perhaps I lack the real world experience but I often feel with people that I disagree with that if we sat down in a room together we could at least find some common ground and more perhaps more arrogantly agree with me. As great as the internet is for sharing ideas and thoughts with each other, I don't think people would be nearly as likely to shout you down face to face as they would over the internet.

In my opinion, people in free society are only "marginalized" if they choose to let circumstance define them. Where I live, black culture heavily discourages upward mobility. If you're a black woman, pursue education and a middle class career, you are ostracized from your family as some sort of traitor since you choose a form of income that doesn't involve popping out babies and collecting welfare. You're "acting white" for daring to think and act as though you could have something different and more exciting than what you were raised with.

The idea that there are some rich white guys somewhere who have a conspiracy against you to keep you oppressed in order to retain some kind of economic advantage or simply for the pleasure of it is a flat-out myth and makes no sense.

What I HAVE experienced in my own life is this: Rich white folks are wealthy not from treading the backs of the poor but from pursuing what they love and what they excel at to the point they eventually gain some reward for all their work. What tends to happen is they hire a team of people with like interests and passions who enable them to do more of what they enjoy doing and spread the benefits of such activities to others. Team members are doing what they love and aren't looking to leave their jobs any more than those they work for really want them to leave. So you do end up with a closed circle of friends and colleagues--not because they have it in for the poor, but because there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy what they've built together.

The music industry is a fame-or-famine industry. Big record companies are only interested in artists who are proven to be profitable. Lady GaGa wasn't always Lady GaGa. She excelled at what she did, record execs saw commercial potential, and they brought her on board. If she wasn't any good at what she does, she'd never have made it anywhere. But even if she hadn't gotten noticed, she wouldn't have changed anything. Now that they've gotten what they wanted, they're going to do everything they can to keep her profitable. She'll eventually get dropped from the label when the money dries up and she'll have some big decisions to make later on as to how she'll continue, IF she even cares.

It's because they are interested in staying profitable that keeps them exclusive. Someone like me isn't worth taking a risk on right now, but I don't need a big record company to make music. I can do just fine on my own. If they like me and notice me, perhaps they'll help me later on, but right now my life doesn't depend on a bunch of "rich white guys" in an office somewhere in Nashville.

If you see a need and potential market for whatever it is you do, you don't NEED some "rich white guy" to give you permission to do what you enjoy doing. If you're going well that your business outgrows you, bring some friends you can trust to help expand into other markets. You don't have to "go big or go home." You only need to be open to the possibility.

Bringing in a profit from an enjoyable activity does not require treading on the backs of the poor. I've found that the older generation tends to like what I do musically more than anyone else, so I stand to do better by offering a service the over-50 crowd. Doing what I do doesn't marginalize anyone, and if I'm exploiting anyone it's the ability of older, independently wealthy patrons to hire me to play their charity fundraisers, private parties, garden clubs, etc., and purchase physical copies of any recorded music I might be selling.

Now, if I were going around badmouthing every young musician I knew looking for gigs and costing them gigs, that would be one thing. However, if someone tries to hire me and I can't possibly make it, I do know other musicians who might be looking for work and I'll pass their names and contact info along. It's called networking. I've gotten band gigs where a keyboard player couldn't be available and they'd ask me to fill in. The degree to which anyone is going to be successful will largely depend on their ability to perform. People who outperform will get more repeat gigs. People who suck won't be asked back. Even if you try to gain an advantage over lesser experienced musicians by badmouthing them, people tend to remember that. They are generally turned-off by people who whine or gossip about others. It shows you can't be trusted. They don't ask you back after that.

Timing has a lot to do with it as well…I just got promised 3 or 4 gigs this year just from answering a craigslist ad. Anybody could have done that and I'D be the one out of a job. I mean, that's only fair. I was kinda surprised I got called back. But that's how it goes sometimes. If I ever get in a situation in which there's so much demand for me that I'm turning gigs down or my inventory becomes impossible to manage, I'm going to find a capable young musician who does basically what I do to trade gigs with and I'll probably outsource the physical side of my business to one or more manufacturers, maybe even hire someone just for distribution. People who make money, and LOTS of it, eventually do have to share their wealth in order to keep wealth coming in. An oppressive attitude towards the marginalized does NOT help keep people on top.

Maybe it does temporarily, but it never lasts. The French kings did have a policy of building their kingdom on the backs of the poor. It took some time, but where is the French aristocracy now? The best focus their energies on service to those who need their products and services. If all you do is focus on keeping poor people poor, sooner or later you're not going to have anyone who can even afford what you have to offer. If everyone benefits from you, you'll continue to reap the rewards. Keeping everyone "in their place" is never in the best interests of the wealthy.

Now, if the wealthy don't do anything to take care of the marginalized, it could be they're just not interested. I have no economic interest in people who can't hire me to play music for them or who can't buy physical copies or, eventually, downloads. It's nothing personal. You can't eat my music, and my music won't provide you shelter from the cold. There are people who provide and/or prepare food, and there are people who can give you a warm place to live. I'm not that person. But people who might cook for you or rent you an apartment aren't going to be concerned with your personal entertainment. That's why you'd hire ME. If I'm not helping you get out of the cold, it's not because I hate you. It's because I simply lack the means to do that. I can't help you. And neither will I keep you from finding someone who can. I used to live in an apartment. I liked my bachelor pad and my first apartment with my wife. They had good rates. I'll send you over there. If you're sick, I've got a great general practitioner I'd highly recommend, and I also know a great nurse practitioner that we take our kids to for emergencies. I know a grocery store that has excellent discounts every week. I know where to get cheap gasoline for your car. I have nothing to gain by cheating you out of good information, and I know it's not in my best interest to gossip about other musicians (unless, of course, there is someone who actually does have a poor reputation. "Yeah, this other guy hired him, he stayed drunk the whole time, and cheated the guy out of about 45 minutes of what he was hired to do. I can't tell you NOT to hire him, but I just thought you should know…" But I'd prefer not to even do that, but rather recommend someone I know who WOULD do a good job. More like, "Yeah, that guy's ok, but you REALLY need to hear this other guy I know…" That way I'm not lying, but I'm not spreading negativity, either).

So-called "marginalized" people who are unwilling to better their circumstances in favor of just whining and badmouthing those who are hard-working and independently successful are just haters. If I ever reach a point at which my career is self-sustaining or I have enough money to not really worry about it, I'm not really inclined to rely on the judgment call of someone who is only doesn't have anything better to do than hate on my because I've been fortunate enough to do well while they haven't.

Money or no money, I'm just going to keep on rockin' and rollin'. Haters gonna hate. I've got nothing for that.

Recently, conservative commentators and radio hosts have been talking about racism - - expressed by angry blacks. They rationalize racism held by whites by claiming it's only a response to black outrage toward past mistreatment, and that Anglo-Saxons have long ago distanced themselves from racial hate(! !! !). Or in other words, they believe in blaming the victims of racism.