Chat

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to one of our first philosophical documents- the core principles document, "What is (and isn't) Beehaw". I'm going to zero in on a small portion in the middle of the first part here, because a recent discussion in the LGBTQ+ space got charged and, in a way, where a larger educational or explanation of what is acceptable/good/kind/nice behavior would be useful.

But how might one determine when it’s okay to be intolerant towards people you believe are being intolerant or who are being intolerant but doing so because they are uneducated or have not spent time deconstructing their own privilege?

Many philosophers have written extensively about this subject, and we simply don’t have time to write an entire manifesto. In simple terms, we are not advocating for tone policing. We believe that being outraged and angry at people who are destroying our society is a good thing to do. When the Supreme Court removes protections for abortion, it’s okay to be outraged and to take action into your own hands - they have done something intolerant. When someone advocates online that you don’t have the right to your own body, it’s okay to tell them to fuck off. In fact, we greatly encourage it. This is being intolerant to the intolerant.

However, when someone online shares an opinion and it feels like they might be intolerant and you jump to the conclusion that they are intolerant and you launch into a tirade at them, this is not nice behavior. You didn’t check if they have the opinion you think they have, and that’s simply not nice to someone which you don’t know.

The section above is about tone policing. Tone policing is a complicated subject, and the full level of nuance is once again outside the scope of this post, but I want to zero in on something that happened in this specific post and to deconstruct what was and wasn't appropriate be(e)havior.

The post in question was a joke in which the author (who I'm assuming is queer) made a joke about making Non-LGBT the minority. They included a winking emoji and an ellipsis to make it relatively clear that this was a joke. In the text of their post they simply wished the readers a happy pride month.

A fair number of individuals (queer and not) entered the thread to voice the opinion that they didn't enjoy the subtext of the post. In some cases, they immediately jumped to the conclusion that this person was advocating for persecuting non-LGBT folks. Some of these responses were tone policing and others were not. I think it's completely valid to respond to this by drawing comparisons to the persecution of queer folks throughout history and warn against persecution as a response to persecution (do not become your oppressors). However, even that is a bit of a jump of logic, as the person did not advocate for persecution at any point. One reasonable interpretation of the title is the suggestion that everyone should embrace whatever gayness they have, because being gay is not a negative or undesirable thing.

I want to zero in on what kind of behavior was tone policing so that folks who may not see where the tone policing is for whatever reason can more accurately identify and avoid that kind of behavior. The key sentence from the philosophical document above is the following one:

When someone advocates online that you don’t have the right to your own body, it’s okay to tell them to fuck off. In fact, we greatly encourage it. This is being intolerant to the intolerant.

This applies broadly to any form of discrimination. If you are a marginalized individual, you have leeway to express your frustration at the systems that oppress you. For example, people of color have the right to vent their frustration at white folks for the centuries of racial discrimination. It is not okay for a white person to jump in and say "you're being racist against whites" when they vent this frustration. If you see someone venting against any system of power you better do a really damn good job at paying attention to the precise language being used and you are absolutely required to be giving this person a reasonable runway of good faith before assuming that they are doing anything but venting their frustration. It is not okay to come in and assume ill intent, to put words into their mouth, or to start a fight with them in one of the few spaces they can freely vent their negative emotions because in many public spaces they are accosted by this kind of behavior (tone policing) frequently.

To be clear, this does not mean that we are giving anyone a free pass at expressing a hateful or intolerant viewpoint. We strongly believe in the paradox of tolerance here and therefore messages which are intolerant towards people who are intolerant are encouraged. You are free to advocate for punching nazis. This is because it is impossible to be a nazi without having an intolerant view of the world. However, sometimes people make statements that could be interpreted as venting about intolerant folks or advocating for an intolerant viewpoint. So, what do you do to help this space feel nice and want to find out whether the message they are spreading is actually intolerant?

The following are a list of ways in which you can ensure to maintain good faith or get more clarity without making assumptions:

• Frame any reply to this person through your own lens - rather than stating "bigotry is unacceptable" you can say something like "I worry that this will result in a more unequal world" or "I'm anxious about this framing because, ..."

• Ask questions! Rather than making a statement about what they have stated, ask for clarity. Instead of saying "this is promoting intolerance" say something like "I'm not sure I follow, are you arguing that ...?" or "Can you explain in more detail what you mean when you say '...'?"

• Ask yourself whether you are the right person to be responding here. Are you a part of the privileged group that you perceive is being attacked? If you are not a part of the privileged group, do you have any context on the plight being described? If not, you should probably start by educating yourself. If you are educated on the topic, are you giving them the benefit of the doubt?

• Encourage discussions rather than focusing on emotions. Instead of saying something along the lines of “you’d win more allies if you were less angry” consider saying “your frustration shows how important it is to address this issue! I think that…” or “you have every right to be angry about this, but I feel alienated when you say…” Of note, the second prompt here could be used to tone police, so be careful about whether you are addressing the words used or the message.

• Ask yourself whether this person may simply be venting their emotions in a safe space online. You can ask questions to clarify this, or simply accept that it's a reasonable interpretation and post nothing. If you are inspired to respond, even just showing recognition that they might be venting their emotion before talking about something else gives space for this possibility and reminds others that it is okay to vent about intolerance directed at you or your loved ones.

• Take a step away from the thread, post, or comment and come back to it hours later. Do you even have a desire to open the thread, post, or comment in the first place? If you do, do you even still wish to engage in that conversation? Have other replies since allayed any concerns you have or made it clear they were joking or venting emotions? Is it worth your time and effort to reply?

• Write a reply, but don't send it immediately. Minimize or hide the tab and come back in 3 hours. Re-read what you wrote. Is it giving them the benefit of the doubt? Are you the person that should be mentioning this? Was this an emotional response to what they said? Could you reword what you wrote to give them more charity? Or does this still bother you and is this the best way to start that conversation about what is bugging or harming you?

• Write a reply and then send it to someone you trust and ask for their interpretation of the comment and your reply. Another person might help you to see that your wording comes off in a way you aren’t intending it to. If you don’t have someone you trust, try floating the response in our discord or matrix channel and get feedback in a smaller group of individuals before posting. If neither of those are available or you can’t find someone to give you the time of day, try asking ChatGPT how it would interpret your message (be sure to include the original comment or chain of comments) and ask it for suggestions on rewording your response “to avoid tone policing.” With the right framework being fed to ChatGPT, it can help you to see how it would change, revise, or re-frame your response. You can use this information to identify the mechanisms/tools it is using and apply them to your own writing.

Hopefully this discussion and this short toolkit will help you to help keep this a safe space, and a nice space online. If you participated in this thread and are unsure whether your behavior was tone policing, I’d encourage you to critically look at your responses and ask yourself whether you employed any of the mechanisms above and whether you may have been tone policing others. If you ever have questions about how we moderate or whether something is okay, feel free to drop in the discord or matrix and ask us.