1. 23
  1.  

  2. 7

    I will upvote this out of a sort of morbid curiosity for the discussion here and also because we should probably see this sort of culture reflection come around once every few months.

    Please remember to be civil in the thread here. It is unlikely any of us will change our minds very far, and so if a subthread appears to be at risk of back and forth just agree to disagree and move on.

    1. 4

      “If all speech is emotional, then we have to ask what political reasons here are for labeling some speech as emotional and some speech as unemotional, and what political purposes this labeling has.”

      It looks like you just redefined the word, then poke holes in peoples points that are made using a different meaning of the word? What political reasons are there for someone doing that?

      1. 3

        shrug

        All the points about speech being emotional are pretty legitimate from the viewpoint of psychology or linguistics. You want to play word games, so let’s identify the key ambiguity: “emotional” has at least 2 meanings. One of these meanings, “of or relating to a person’s emotions”, is a relatively precise and neutral term and it is in this sense that all speech is “emotional”. The article basically addresses that another meaning, “(of a person) having feelings that are easily excited and openly displayed”, is often used in a pejorative sense.

        All questions of majorities, minorities, demographics, power, and bias aside, I’d take this argument at face value for arguing something like, “openly displayed emotion in communication does not always imply irrationality or undue partiality; restrained or inscrutable emotion in communication does not imply rationality or impartiality.”

        edit: to directly address your question, something something something-something feminism something something-something patriarchy something-something bias-masquerading-as-impartiality.

      2. 3

        I agree “You’re being emotional” often means things enumerated in the article.

        I contend it doesn’t always mean those, and can be used for its plain meaning. For example, Leah Rowe was described as being emotional. (“Her sanity was questioned by the community, while others patronisingly say that she is going through a difficult time and it acting emotionally.”) Specific action described as being emotional was demanding refund of donation to FSF. (“She would also like the $6120 USD that she donated to the FSF since 2015 to be refunded to her by the FSF.”) I claim this usage is not shaming, asserting credibility, faulting others for unwanted emotion, projecting, false dismissal, or rejecting one’s own emotion. It means she is acting in a way that wouldn’t be considered best by herself in hindsight. And indeed, both statements were deleted later.

        1. 2

          Right, but there’s ample other language that also suits and doesn’t have a long history of being used that way (e.g. vindictive would be more precise and harder to argue with)

          1. 2

            This is a good advice, and I will use “vindictive” in the future if similar situation comes up. Thanks. Choosing the best word, while avoiding words with “bad history”, can be difficult for foreign language speakers, and I appreciate all the help.

        2. 1

          The opening sentence pegs “white men” as the source of the impassiveness but I don’t think there’s a racial angle to be had. I think it applies to men in general.

          Also, the TV and film industry is far whiter than tech (and about as sexist).