tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5011331132487929841..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Tone. Need I say more?Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18561989774568146152010-05-10T20:15:31.766+10:002010-05-10T20:15:31.766+10:00I thought the point was clear. You can't judge...I thought the point was clear. You can't judge what a piece of text means unless you can judge whether it is intended ironically, angrily, straightforwardly, wryly ... or what. Tone is part of meaning. It's one thing to say that you disagree with my judgment of something's tone and therefore of its meaning. It's another to say that such judgments are bullshit, or mere rationalisation, or obfuscation, or whatever. You have to get over that.<br /><br />That's a summary. If I could tell the whole story more succinctly than my long posts I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of writing long posts.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-12560334561163314632010-05-10T12:12:05.599+10:002010-05-10T12:12:05.599+10:00Sorry Russell, people need to be responsible for t...Sorry Russell, people need to be responsible for their tweets and postings - for some reason you seem to think tone plays a part to this cognitive conclusion of meaning. Do you do this in order to make your argument work, or do you truly believe a 11 year old girl getting 'laid' is appropriate in any forum?<br /><br />Even if the tonal representation was correct the idea isn't and I must say that I am a little surprised you support it...<br /><br />let me put it this way for you - in a tweet between pedophiles in appropriate suggestions are made about a child. Now, applying the simple rule (yes I am using extreme views here) the tweet is appropriate because of the posters reading audience.<br /><br />Now, I could have used simpler and less controversial subjects, but this one highlights the point I want to make.<br /><br />What are you defending Russell? I was with you tonally until the last postAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-1929734153904780932010-05-08T20:23:36.030+10:002010-05-08T20:23:36.030+10:00Well, let me stress, as I said in the original pos...Well, let me stress, as I said in the original post, that the tone of a passage is not relevant to the formal cogency of its arguments. Someone who confuses the two things is not discussing tone intelligently.<br /><br />But think about Catherine Deveny recently being sacked from <i>The Age</i> for saying, on Twitter, "I hope Bindi Irwin gets laid." (She also made another remark that contributed to her sacking.)<br /><br />Now, there are lots of things that might be said about Deveny's now-notorious tweet. E.g., it might be said that it was unfairly picking on an 11-y.o. girl. But what can't be said, by someone with an intelligent sense of tone, is that Deveny literally meant that she hoped 11-y.o. Bindi Irwin would have sexual intercourse with someone after the Logie Awards.<br /><br />To understand the tweet you had to model the assumptions the speaker was making about her audience. She was addressing her Twitter followers as people who'd be alert to a non-literal, satirical meaning, to a pithy way of putting a point that would take a long time to nail down in expository prose, to a mordant wit, etc.<br /><br />You have to imagine sitting watching the TV with Deveny, or sitting at the table with her, and a famous 11-y.o. girl walks past wearing a sexy outfit. You both, perhaps, share the idea that sexy outfits are not appropriate for girls that young. You're certainly both aware of the issue. Deveny looks at you in a certain way, and says, drily, somewhat disapprovingly, "I hope Bindi Irwin gets laid." Perhaps she reinforces the effect by rolling her eyes.<br /><br />As a result, what she really communicates is a sort of half-amused, half-despairing disgust that such a young girl has been dressed up in such sexy clothes.<br /><br />People who didn't "get it" have accused people who are trying to explain the above of merely rationalising, but I don't think that's remotely true. We're explaining the message that anyone reading Deveny's twitter feed, with the context of the Logies and a knowledge of Deveny's <i>modus operandi</i>, would have picked up.<br /><br />The way she expressed the message doesn't make her argument against what she sees as the outrageous sexualisation of an 11-y.o. girl either more or less cogent. But the way she said it drove home her point that there was, as she perceived the situation, something ridiculous, and something creepy, about putting such clothes on someone so young. So there was a reason to say it the way she did (she was, of course, also restricted to 140 keystrokes).<br /><br />Furthermore, in the aftermath of her sacking, the debate about whether she said something that was a sackable offence, etc., its's a good idea to have an intelligent understanding of what she was communicating and why she said it in the way she did.<br /><br />Of course, Deveny didn't think all this through consciously at the time. It would have seemed a natural way for her to make her point. Nor did people who "got" it have to think all this through consciously. But we can't have an intelligent discussion of what she meant, whether she was justified in putting it that way, and so on, without being able to think through and talk about tone and related aspects of language.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9406732061455750062010-05-07T16:28:07.429+10:002010-05-07T16:28:07.429+10:00i admit to being very guilty of the attitude indic...i admit to being very guilty of the attitude indicated in the above post of having thought tone to be irrelevant issue in written arguments between two persons. <br />i am intrigue by this claim of an intelligent discussion to tone and would like an example (could you analyze one your post for tone) and highlight how a good discussion would follow?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775455066960384173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46587595265700675762010-05-07T15:53:54.143+10:002010-05-07T15:53:54.143+10:00Russell, I have been one to forget tone at times, ...Russell, I have been one to forget tone at times, or convey the wrong tone by accident in static posts. Though, I do believe some have applied a tone to my views that doesn't exist in the text or within me - it does happen and these days I must shrug and move along as life has become too short to re establish my deliberate tone over something mis-toned<br /><br />In fiction the general modern feel that I have seen if almost a flatness of tone - not monotone, though there can be best sellers in this area - but more a tone that runs the inoffensive angle rather than trying to convey strong feeling and responses to the text.<br /><br />Now tone in text debate is always questionable and good debate aims at the more neutral tone so as to deliver solid argument without emotive justifications. This is regardless of who is debating and what the subject is.<br /><br />When I discuss Christianity with atheists (considering all my writerly friends are atheists this is often - but not religious in content) I do not see myself as some kind of accomodationalist - why not say hippie and be done with it? nor do I see them as new atheists. Our tone is neutral and open.<br /><br />Now snarky or off handed commentary regardless of tone does no benefit everyone, it is designed to dismiss at least one person - this is not clever use of tone, nor is it of any benefit to the arguments being put forth.<br /><br />I have made reasonable argument for why religions may act in a particular way when faced with a particular problem only to have a commentator say 'but you believe in fairy stories' - regardless of the tone of such a comment, what did it offer? Did it advance the striving for common ground, the desire to mutually understand each other - No.<br /><br />True, work on tone in your text discussions, but also address personal issues before applying the idea of 'the tone was missing' when being deliberately dismissive of someone.<br /><br />Now, my tone here might seem a bit harsh and perhaps rightly so, as it does annoy me when people do want to enter into christian/atheist discussion on reasonable terms only to end up with something unwanted.<br /><br />Now, onto another tone -- my abs<br /><br />Robert N StephensonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73572707354736533492010-05-07T11:59:34.513+10:002010-05-07T11:59:34.513+10:00"Russell, I am addressing accommodationism an..."Russell, I am addressing accommodationism and anyone who says that discussions MUST be handled gently and deferentially."<br /><br />And which accommodationists are we talking about? Chris Mooney is not John Wilkins, who is not Eugenie Scott, either. If we are talking about the latter two, then we are talking about people who, on the one hand, are fairly gentle to those who are willing to accommodate their beliefs to the science, such as theistic evolutionists, and on the other hand, take a hard line against outright creationists and even mock their leaders. Their tone is not uniform.<br /><br />BTW, I've noticed that those who go out of their way to be rude are more prone to, ahem, adjust their perception of reality to justify their rudeness. For example, to justify calling DeDora a "witless wanker," <a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/04/pz-myers-is-witless-wanker-who-peddles.html" rel="nofollow">PZ Myers misread him in a way</a> <a href="http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2010/04/of-cats-and-dogs.html" rel="nofollow">that is almost (?) willfully dishonest</a>. Anger can be a useful emotion, but too much emphasis on it can corrupt.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-84451356590097164612010-05-07T09:41:17.103+10:002010-05-07T09:41:17.103+10:00Oh, okay. But I didn't notice anyone taking th...Oh, okay. But I didn't notice anyone taking that line on this thread. I certainly didn't in the original post. Your comment seemed kind of out of left field.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4080787832979222172010-05-07T09:35:54.223+10:002010-05-07T09:35:54.223+10:00Russell, I am addressing accommodationism and anyo...Russell, I am addressing accommodationism and anyone who says that discussions MUST be handled gently and deferentially. I also feel that content is more important than tone. In face-to-face communication, I have been accused of having an angry tone when people mistake passion and enthusiasm for anger.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3469522742327737822010-05-07T09:24:17.171+10:002010-05-07T09:24:17.171+10:00NEB, who are you addressing in your comment? Your ...NEB, who are you addressing in your comment? Your comment doesn't seem to be responive to the points in my post, which called for more intelligent discussion of tone, not for saying someone's tone is "wrong". Are you addressing one of the commenters?Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91520127534165366612010-05-07T07:12:21.819+10:002010-05-07T07:12:21.819+10:00Is this tone wrong too:
http://whyevolutionistrue...Is this tone wrong too:<br /><br />http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/futuyma-reviews-what-darwin-got-wrong/<br /><br />The truth should be unvarnished, even if it hurts.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4461613484267848392010-05-06T22:11:25.354+10:002010-05-06T22:11:25.354+10:00Tone, schmone
There we go. Even the best succumb ...<i>Tone, schmone</i><br /><br />There we go. Even the best succumb to temptation sometimes! We are only human after all...386sxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54473508675834465512010-05-06T16:45:37.499+10:002010-05-06T16:45:37.499+10:00He writes to everyone - some just have more capaci...He writes to everyone - some just have more capacity to filter him out, or else they use comment moderation (which I'm loath to do as it creates inconvenience all round).Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55433734704542590952010-05-06T15:57:12.044+10:002010-05-06T15:57:12.044+10:00DM is a fan of Russell Blackford and also Alonzo F...DM is a fan of Russell Blackford and also Alonzo Fyfe. If I can find out where else he's trolling I'll probably discover some great new atheist bloggers.josefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650991894634101445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90683030033766155382010-05-06T14:57:38.556+10:002010-05-06T14:57:38.556+10:00Tone, schmone - DM just gets zapped.Tone, schmone - DM just gets zapped.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-41425631826086129862010-05-06T13:26:09.804+10:002010-05-06T13:26:09.804+10:00In the absence of a substantive objection, tone al...In the absence of a substantive objection, tone always tends to materialize as something which is wrong with a speaker, and I always view this with suspicion.<br /><br />I recall the movie Changeling, where a woman was given a child that was not her son. She became very upset with the LAPD for this, and insisted they had made a mistake. She gets thrown in a mental institution.<br /><br />Later in court, with the LAPD tries to defend their decision, they cite her 'erratic behavior', when all the while she was substantively right and they had no meaningful response to the issue that they had given her the wrong child.<br /><br />I think whenever a person is wrong in any dispute, they are likely to feel upset, and to attribute their being upset to the person who disagrees with them and even characterize the whole discourse not in terms of them being wrong or challenged, but in terms of a "tone" that is objectionable.<br /><br />I think lots of Christians are doing this with the New Atheists, and that there is a trickle-over effect found in accommodationists who want for there to be a middle ground.josefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06650991894634101445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68138022978752144842010-05-06T12:20:31.576+10:002010-05-06T12:20:31.576+10:00Now Id love to see what an effective tone should b...Now Id love to see what an effective tone should be in a response to DM.Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14164964363898764402010-05-06T08:19:00.480+10:002010-05-06T08:19:00.480+10:00The problem is likely to be that a lot of discussi...<i>The problem is likely to be that a lot of discussion of tone is just not very intelligent</i><br /><br />Yes.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-10220788839584419442010-05-06T07:51:42.402+10:002010-05-06T07:51:42.402+10:00Troll gone!Troll gone!Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-12347355432478781012010-05-06T07:49:05.098+10:002010-05-06T07:49:05.098+10:00Hey DM,
Do the world a favor and insert a curling...Hey DM,<br /><br />Do the world a favor and insert a curling iron into your rectum.<br /><br />But do it with a nice tone.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-19424861237647333202010-05-06T05:52:02.199+10:002010-05-06T05:52:02.199+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.DMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11389651479904502758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91689313472447412382010-05-06T03:45:55.245+10:002010-05-06T03:45:55.245+10:00What you describe as tone seems to be covered by w...What you describe as tone seems to be covered by what one of my critical thinking books terms implicature.Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-13075520416361004272010-05-06T03:01:29.235+10:002010-05-06T03:01:29.235+10:00"usually from commenters in the blogosphere, ..."usually from commenters in the blogosphere, not so much in actual blog posts - that tone just doesn't matter. It really does."<br />I think that atleast some of the people do not deny that tone matters , the position they have is<br />a. How effective a particular tone is especially a reasoned / polite tone v/s a contemptuous/arrogant one to make the same argument.<br />b. The specific stance that if someone is turned of by tone when fact based matters are discussed , they don't care too much about what that someone thinks anyway. <br /><br />which isn't the same as saying tone doesn't matter.Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54843819573821100332010-05-06T00:40:57.169+10:002010-05-06T00:40:57.169+10:00Wonderfully lucid post, Russell.
In the visual ...Wonderfully lucid post, Russell. <br /><br />In the visual arts, tone (or style or manner) is an essential consideration. The subject matter could just as well be presented in an essay, and the artistic form is a choice. <br /><br />Painting someone's portrait in high realism conveys different things than painting them an Impressionist style. Both matter as much as <i>whose</i> portrait is being painted. <br /><br />Aesthetic choices matter.Glendon Mellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03582347493421110738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71369149998885427482010-05-06T00:21:21.742+10:002010-05-06T00:21:21.742+10:00Excellent post. I liked its tone, too :-).
So, ho...Excellent post. I liked its tone, too :-).<br /><br />So, how does this relate to the complaints that 'accommodationists' have about the 'new atheists'? I think there are at least two problems with those complaints:<br /><br />1) They are asking writers and commenters to avoid using a tone, not particularly well-defined, which they've decided is counter-productive, without *actually* demonstrating that it is. So, for example, they may be objecting to a 'snarky' tone. But it's not clear that *sometimes* a snarky tone may be productive in a debate. They need to provide good evidence that it is, if that's what they contend.<br /><br />2) If we are to allow an embargo on some particular tone, it should be noted that accommodationists themselves use potentially objectionable tone in may of their comments against new atheists, and others, so much of what they say would have to be sugar-coated before delivery. For example, Massimo Pigliucci, who doesn't like the tone of the new atheists, was himself accused of being too sarcastic in tone by Carlin Romano. So who is to be the grand arbiter of tone? Better, surely, to let tone look after itself in the marketplace of free ideas, and allow folk to interpret pieces with all tone included. <br /><br />I suppose the one proviso here is if one could show that a particular tone incited violence. I'm not sure that's possible (I think words are needed for that), but I will stand corrected if someone can demonstrate that.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982524614308121228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31218775742632628312010-05-05T23:17:20.601+10:002010-05-05T23:17:20.601+10:00A moment's meditation:
To exercise one's s...A moment's meditation:<br />To exercise one's sensitivity to tone in written language, just for fun, cogitate upon the difference between "damning with faint praise" and "feinting with damned praise." <br /><br />To detect the difference, one must read between the lines.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.com