"If you don't like it, leave!"

Firstly - a big apology for not doing very much posting at all. Secondly - I don't think this blog will update particularly frequently, just to warn you.

This one is really quite common and also something that pisses me off...well...quite a lot, let's put it that way. Group you're part of is doing something really stupid? "If you don't like it, leave!" Disagree with something? "If you don't like it, leave!" Be at all critical of anything? "If you don't like it, leave!"

Now, this "argument" (I will not dignify it by leaving the quotation marks out) is full of bullshit and seems to be mainly used by people who can't defend their position. (I hope this isn't ad hominem - it does seem to me that this argument is only used by people who can't think of something better, though.) Let me attempt to explain why.

Leaving is not always an option. This one should be obvious and presumably isn't - that or we're getting into the territory of intentional intellectual dishonesty, which makes me frankly a bit upset and uncomfortable. Not everyone has the option to up sticks and leave whenever they please, hence sometimes people need to change a situation rather than leave it entirely. It may be impossible to leave; leaving may not be allowed at all, the person may not have the means to leave or to support themselves if they do leave, or there may simply be no place to leave for.

Leaving implies that they have a problem with most if not all of the principles and methods, while they may only want to change some. Nothing is immutable and nothing is perfect; few things are wholly imperfect either. It is perfectly possible to have a problem with the way some things are done but like or be able to tolerate the rest, and therefore only want to change it rather than overhaul the whole system.

There are probably more problems with it out there, but those are the main two that I could think of - oh, and there's another one two: by using this argument, you introduce elements to your opponent's argument that might not actually exist. In other words, you've disregarded their argument in favour of one you made up and attributed to them, meaning you need to work on your comprehension skills, your intellectual honesty, or both. It also presents a false dichotomy of sorts - you accept the current situation just as it is or you leave it, with nothing in between. This is nothing short of lazy thinking and lazy debating, too, intended to shut up your opponent...and, of course, it fails miserably because of the glaring holes in the "argument".

And finally, a plea to everyone planning on using this before I explained why not to: please think harder. It does not take as much effort as you seem to think it does.

The Tone Argument

I've seen this one used far too many times to ignore it, so let me have my take on some lazy thinking mixed in with some despicable oppression.

In a nice, clean, sanitised form, the tone "argument" (I would rather not dignify it any longer, thanks) is the idea - the bad idea, I should point out - that the tone a statement is made in somehow affects the accuracy of the statement. To put it rather less generally, if I swear, shout or generally do anything the other person finds offensive, this somehow makes my statement inaccurate or wrong. To show how little sense this makes:

Prima: "The sun goes round the earth."
Secunda: "No it doesn't, the earth goes round the sun!"
Prima: "How can you say that? It's the sun that moves in the sky."
Secunda: "Yes, from our position it looks like the sun's moving, but it's actually the earth."
Prima: "I don't believe you. I don't trust science."
Secunda: "How fucking hard is it? The earth goes round the fucking sun! We have proof!"
Prima: "You know, maybe you'd win more people round to your side if you were nicer about it."

Now do you see the problem? Prima utterly ignores Secunda to the point where Secunda gets a little angry, then rejects Secunda and Secunda's statement for swearing and "not being nice". I am only lucky that I used an example as obvious and accepted as the earth going round the sun - and even then, I think someone might use the tone argument on me.

An issue with this is that the style of my statement does not affect the content of my statement. It's the equivalent of said statement being rejected as false for being written in, say, red, or sprayed in pink across a bridge. It makes no sense whatsoever. It also really doesn't matter whether I spell "The earth goes round the sun" out in fireworks or whether I explain it at a lecture - my statement is still true. (OK, I concede, roughly true.)

I'll move off this nice, neutral, sanitised version and into its actual application: the oppression of the less privileged and the derailing of arguments. If a person with less privilege (woman, POC, etc.) tries to argue their case to a person with more privilege (man, white, rich, cis, etc.), they might end up getting angry at how their points aren't getting through. It happens. And if they do get angry - enter the tone argument! "You're angry, that means you can't be rational! You're not thinking this through properly! And besides, my research shows..."

...True logic and rationality are not found in a person's tone of voice. They are found in the substance of a person's words.

Won't somebody think of the men?

I used to like the Good Men Project. I really did. (This was back before Hugo Schwyzer left and a lot of creepy stuff about his past came out, though.) And then they wrote stuff like this and claimed that women were "othering" men.

First things first: spot the obvious logical fallacy, namely, the SPLC, an organisation I have nothing but respect for, is called out on using guilt by association (it didn't) - and then the article's writer uses guilt by association too. Second things second: the Manosphere and indeed quite a lot of MRAs are violently misogynist and anti-feminist. This article and others like it try and smooth that over, misrepresenting the arguments of feminists and painting the Manosphere as something righteous when it really, really isn't. I've seen people argue that misogyny is just honesty, that only men can think and any thinking woman is an honourary man, that eeeeeeevil women are responsible for all men's troubles...yeah, the list goes on. The Manosphere looks very much like an attempt by people with privilege to not give up said privilege.

FIRST POST!

Yay for inane internet inanities!...

...Anyway, I'm a snarky idiot with a hate of all things stupid (though I don't mind being silly) and a love of logic and reason. I also run a personal blog and a blog about Latin.

I warn you, I can be quite mean and I don't pull my punches, though I'll refrain from crass personal insults and concentrate on the point at hand - though not without much swearing, since I like a bit of profanity.