(no subject)

[nolly]

When did "Your experience is not universal" stop being a valid objection? And when did "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" stop being true?

Or is "derailing" now synonymous with "perspective" and "common sense"?

Comments

[ashi.livejournal.com]

I didn't get any memo about these changes...

[phantomdancer.livejournal.com]

well actually, vinegar catches far more flies than honey in reality. give it a try sometime...

[meep.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm.... about 30 minutes ago.

It takes a while for the memos to get sent around....

[bovil.livejournal.com]

"Derailing" isn't synonymous with "perspective" or "common sense." "Derailing" is using those two perfectly good axioms (and others) to discredit a speaker or distract from the topic being discussed.

"Your experience is not universal" often is invoked without the important closing "but it is your experience," implying that it's not only not universal, it's not real.

"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" (or the "tone argument") rarely considers how much honey someone has invested over the years, and assumes that it actually worked. It generally indicates as much discomfort with the topic as with the anger.

[ashi.livejournal.com]

Ah, I can see how they could be misused.

[ailbhe]

"Your experience is not universal" often strongly implies "and I will ignore what you have to say, because it doesn't count."

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" is often just a way to blame victims for not being nice enough when expressing their anger and demanding that people stop shitting on them.

I don't know your context, so I can't be more precise than that, but the two separate isms I saw being discussed in those terms on LJ recently had a whole ton of both going on.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

If I ever have a fly problem, I'll consider it, but the ultrasonic pest repeller the previous owners left behind has been working amazingly well.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

The problem is that appropriate usages of those axioms are also tarred as derailing, and thus, people are afraid to apply them at all.

For honey vs, vinegar, I point to discussions of potentially-fraught topics in ozarque's comment-space versus pretty much anywhere else. ozarque is an expert in peaceful and effective communication, and models such techniques wonderfully; her journal, as a result, is an excellent space for conversation about nearly any topic. While most people, me included, aren't nearly as skillful, it seems like many people don't even try.

On extrapolation, it cuts both ways -- my own experience has been dismissed when trying to point out that someone else's was not, in fact, universal. I learned long ago that mine wasn't.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

If someone is insisting that their experience is the only one that counts, and my experience differs, I absolutely will ignore what they have to say. If, on the other hand, they are willing to acknowledge a variety of experiences, I will happily listen.

[kishiriadgr.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I use "Your experience is not universal" and it's converse, "This is what I've experienced; your mileage may vary" all the time.

I think the "vinegar" thing is with flies who will only react to negative motivation.

[tiger-spot.livejournal.com]

"You know, I've had good luck catching flies with Brand X honey with a bit of molasses in it, let's try that" can be a useful strategic discussion within a fly-catching organization. "I'm not landing on that honey, it's spoiled and smells like vinegar! I will only land on pure, fresh honey!" from the flies is not usually true, much less helpful.

One will, as a rule, achieve significantly greater reductions in the fly population by putting one's own bait out than by trying to talk the next person over into using different bait. There are some exceptions when the next person over is part of one of those fly-catching organizations that's, say, putting bait on every bus-stop billboard in town, but when they're posting it on the internet they haven't got any more of an audience than you have.

[ailbhe]

If they want you to listen, that may be important to them.

But I do think that when using phrases (or situations, or allegories) which have a history of being used to silence people it's important to make clear that that's not what one is doing, preferably before using the problematic construction.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I'm seeing fewer and fewer occasions when these arguments are being used in a constructive manner. I'm recognizing more ways they're abused every day. Another common abuse of "Your experience is not universal" and "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" is "let's make this about me instead of about you" (and the implied "I'm more important than you").

Avoiding derailing is a simple thing. Accept the experience (even if it's not universal), acknowledge the anger, keep focus on the topic.

Once you've established trust and rapport, then you can talk about the twitchy bits and hypocrisy. After all, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ;)

[firecat]

When did "Your experience is not universal" stop being a valid objection?

When someone in the conversation thinks an objection is not called for at that particular juncture.

And when did "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" stop being true?

When people stopped applying it to themselves in favor of using it to judge other people.

[tablesaw]

There are very different purposes and power dynamics in the fora that you seem to be implicating in your post (which, as far as I can tell based on your previous posts and recent events, are fora set up by non-white fans for the discussions of race in the context of SF/F fandom), and the one set up by ozarque for her own purposes. Probably the most critical is that Ozarque maintains an forum where communication is oriented to be one-on-one, even in her online space. In contrast, the implicated fora or oriented toward groups. That makes a crucial difference in the way that Verbal Self-Defense tactics are employed, even without taking into account the power dynamic that causes once person to believe that a different level of response is necessary than another might.

Still, let's talk about ozarque's Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense in this context. I have the book (not the revised edition) in front of me, but some information can be found online. In this frame of reference, "derailing" is a verbal attack on those people who are facilitating the discussion. Sometimes it is a direct attack, other times it is more abstract, and might be considered, in an odd way, an attack on the dialogue itself. (This is definitely one of the ways that wide-group communication is different from one-on-one communication, as mentioned above.)

Ozarque explains, most people intiating verbal attacks are looking for attention. Many derailing tactics involve traditional verbal attacks that would be recognized in a one-on-one situation, but in this group-oriented setting, they may be more subtly demanding of attention. In this case, even a declaration of "I want to learn" can turn very quickly into "I demand to be taught" which is itself a demand for attention that distracts time and resources away from the topic at hand. And since these fora are often set up as a place to exert time, effort and other resources to very particular ends, drawing attention away is doubly harmful.

Regarding "more flies with honey" and the "tone argument," it's dangerous to go by the more obvious indicators of a person's statements as opposed to the hidden presuppositions included in their communication. In describing the dynamics of a dialogue as a whole, Satir Modes (different modes of communicating, described generally in the link) are helpful to describe how derailing works on the larger scale. The "tone argument" often implies that the proper mode of a dialogue is Computer Mode (wherein participants conceal their emotions) or Placater Modes (wherein participants not only conceal their emotions but adopt false ones out of the fear that others might leave the dialogue). But while Computer Mode often has its place (Ozarque notes that it's the safest mode to use), a productive dialogue needs to exist mostly in Leveler mode.

The most dangerous forms of the "tone" argument is one that doesn't call for less-hostile communication but for less-emotional communication—that is, a switch out of Leveler and into Computer. While Computer is often the safest mode to be in, and may be a good one for a person uncomfortable with the conversation to use, it is not, ultimately, the most productive mode for the entire dialogue. Especially when approaching topics that have intense emotions associated with them, like racism and sexism, those emotions need to have room to be expressed in order to fully communicate.

All of the main derailing tactics (note: this link contains lots of sarcasm that some find unnecessary) can be funneled into the Satir modes. A vast majority of ugly tactics fall to Blamers. Pointing out responses as "Liberal White Guilt" are identifying Placaters. The "tone argument," as noted, is often used by Computers. Distractors, obviously, mix and match. There are, theoretically, Levelers who might be called derailing, but in Leveling Mode, the simple response of, "This is not the right time/place/forum" is enough to prevent a full derail.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

I am not implicating any fora "set up by non-white fans for the discussions of race in the context of SF/F fandom". I am not involved in or reading any such fora. This specific post was sparked by a specific post else-LJ, which I am not linking to -- if I wanted to drag that person into it, I would've commented there rather than keeping my snark in my own journal.

While the thing I am reacting to derived in part from the recent explosions, the OP has said it is not only (or even primarily) about race, and none of the content therein is RaceFail or race specific.

I will note that, from my perspective, ozarque comments space is no more inherently one-to-one than any other space -- she puts "reply to X" in the subject because her browser doesn't always display the threading properly, and replies sometimes end up at the wrong level, not because the reply is intended only for that person. On the other hand, rather a lot of the first round of Fail seemed to start in part from third parties jumping into previously one-to-one conversations.

I am aware of what "derailing" should mean. I question whether the two specific things I called out are inherently derailing, as was implied in the thing I am reacting to. I said nothing about "I want to know (so it's YOUR job to teach me)" or other techniques.

I have read "Derailing for Dummies". I thought I had read it, but either it's been significantly rewritten/redesigned since, or I read a similar page, but not this one. In looking over it now (and I'll read more closely when I have time), it has points I agree with, and points I don't (specifically the ones I called out here), and I do think less sarcasm would be more constructive.

By "more flies with honey", I mean things like: Treat each other like rational, reasonable humans. Be civil. Assuming the worst is not constructive; ask instead. Let people save face when they need to. Listen. Remember words are powerful, and what someone hears might not be what you mean.

I have seen (IMO) perfectly legitimate questions/objections dismissed as "derailing" rather than addressed. Calling someone a derailer appears to be the new way of silencing those with unpopular opinions.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, "Your experience is not universal; here's my different experience" can just as easily imply "I'm just as important as you", and when that experience is ignored, it says "No, you don't matter."

[nolly.livejournal.com]

I dunno; I think some people have significantly larger audiences on the internet than I do.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

Why is the opinion of the person who doesn't think an objection is called for more valid than the opinion of the person who does?

[tiger-spot.livejournal.com]

I think plenty of people start with larger audiences. But the nature of linking means that any weird little corner can suddenly be noticed and become the center of a great deal of activity.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

It's a difficult argument to make when the other party is hurting or ranting. In many cases they're not ready to hear that kind of thing right away.

[postrophe.livejournal.com]

I thought those were mostly bogus...

[nolly.livejournal.com]

I have no other explanation for the fact that I haven't seen a single ant in the house in 5 years, when people not far away are overrun. I know other people who also swear by them. I doubt I would've bought one on my own, but it does appear to help.

[linenoise.livejournal.com]

The problem is the number of times when "I'm in pain" or "I've been wronged, here" is being translated as the inalienable right to say whatever the fuck anyone wants and to utterly dictate the entire discourse. I understand that people rant. But just because you're in pain, it doesn't automatically mean that the entire world revolves around your pain and all other discourse is entirely banned.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

That depends on the venue.

If it's a community, it's the rules of the community.

If it's someone else's journal or blog, it's their rules. As John Scalzi puts it, only he gets to be an asshole on Whatever.

If it's your personal journal, you get to call the shots as to whether you're looking for a dialog, sympathy or just to write. It can be all about your pain at the moment, and that's just fine.