3 posts tagged “discourse”
[Crossposted to Official Shrub.com Blog.]
Amy Gahran has a good post up about apologies and why they're necessary.
The post was sparked by Amy Alkon's advice column about cheating, entitled "Along Came Polyamory." Understandably, many polyamorous folk were miffed at the equation of the concepts. (It's hard enough figuring out who's okay with the concept without it being confused with unethical behavior.) But rather than apologize for causing offense, Ms. Alkon decided to take the offensive, complaining that those who had a problem just didn't understand her irony, and basically just being a big bully.
Coincidentally enough, I had just discovered Ms. Alkon's anti-feminist screed "Victims Gone Wild" the other day. She seems to be one of those "postfeminists" in the vein of ifeminists or IWF that figure that since they're privileged, anyone who complains that they're not is just adopting a "victim mentality," and that feminism is unnecessary because of what someone said Dworkin or Mackinnon said a couple decades ago.
Ms. Gahran's post, though, could have been sparked by any of the non-apologies of late (Ann Althouse, Harlan Ellison, and so on all the metaphorical way back to "she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.") Why is it so hard for people to apologize for offending people? It can be done.
(…and we all screw up at some point.)
[Crossposted to Official Shrub.com Blog.]
From Hugo Schwyzer’s post on the Valenti/Althouse incident, after he himself got called on an offensive comment he made:
For the record, I will happily pose for a picture with anyone. If the local leader of the Klan came by, I’d stand for a photo with my arm around him and grin for the camera, and then promptly give him a good earful. If the camera only captures my smile, and not my rebuke, that’s not my responsibility. Bill Clinton is not in the Klan.* Clinton’s private failings are better known than the failings of any other human being alive. But compared to the other living men who have held the office of president, he has clearly been the one most committed to the overall goals of the feminist agenda. And for that, he deserves our — qualified — gratitude.*Sometimes I post things I ought not to have. Once they’ve been commented on, though, I don’t delete them — just strike them as evidence of my foolishness.
While we can debate whether it’s better to delete altogether or use strikethrough, either approach is a heck of a lot better than Althouse’s (and Ellison’s, and Kos’s) tactics of denial, minimization and blame-shifting. Thanks for pointing out the high road, Hugo.
[This post originally appeared on Official Shrub.com Blog.]
What do you do when someone makes a claim of personal experience that just isn’t believable? Specifically, do you accuse them of fabricating the claim?
I’m sure many of you have heard by now about the anti-choice blogger who mistook an Onion article for a serious editorial. In a response to that article, he made the claim that the reason he thought the article was genuine was because he would “meet people like her in the field all the time.” Most readers of feminist discussion forums have encountered other experiences of dubious veracity, such as the tale of the poor man harangued for opening a door, or the malicious women’s studies professor who lowers the grades of her male students.
With most of these stories, I suspect they never happened, and are just invented to support the author’s point, but of course due to their nature I can never prove this. The best I can do is look for supporting evidence - an earlier mention of the experience, for example, or similar experiences reported by other (perhaps not so biased) people.
The options I can see for dealing with someone who makes an unbelievable claim to support their point:
- Give them the benefit of the doubt and treat the claim as true.
- Acknowledge your doubt, but treat the claim as conditionally true.
- Express your doubts to the truth of the claim, suggesting that the story may be misremembered or incomplete.
- Accuse the commenter of making up the story to support their point.
The consensus usually seems to be to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt, at least in the immediate discussion. The basic idea is one of creating richer discussions: with respect to verifiable data, requiring everybody to constantly cite their sources for everything they say bogs down the discussion (and indeed, is a common tactic for derailing a discussion). When it comes to claims of personal experience, where often no verification is possible the rationale is one of quid pro quo: if we acknowledge others’ experiences as genuine, people will give us the same benefit when we bring up our own personal experiences. This will create a more productive discussion than one personal data it is off limits, at least when we’re talking about a subject where there is not going to be much “hard data” or where “hard data” is likely to be biased.
Accusing someone of lying throws that social contract away, and opens the door to counteraccusations of lying, or of ignoring truth in favor of ideology. But what does saying “if she really said that, she’s wrong” accomplish? The impression is that of a “no true Scotsman” fallacy - that we’re just sweeping the inconvenient feminists under the rug.
Obviously, calling someone out on a fabrication isn’t going to convince them of the rightness of your position. The usual rationale for it is to appeal to third-party readers. However, these readers are also going to be able to come to their own conclusions; if that were the sole purpose, it probably wouldn’t be worth raising the point. However, the introduction of the fake anecdote tends to do more than just appeal to the people willing to believe it; it derails the conversation as other commenters respond in order to distance themselves from it.
So, readers, what do you all do when you’re confronted with this? How has it worked out?
One thing I would not ever advocate is accusing someone making a claim of rape, assault or abuse of making it up. These sort of claims should *always* be taken seriously, because victims of these crimes have had a long history of being ignored, or called liars, and because they’re intensely personal - it does a lot more harm for a victim not to be believed about these matters.
