mahiwaga

The problem I have with the concept of rudeness is that it is frequently used by the privileged to stifle the speech of the marginalized. For example, we can’t talk about racism, much less call someone out as saying/doing something racist, because it’s rude. Never mind whether the accusation of racism may be true….

Never mind that racism is worse than mere rudeness.

The idea of “uncouth speech” is also heavily laden with the baggage of imperialism. I can’t freely speak in the language of my parents because not speaking the vernacular is considered rude. Certain languages were tagged by Europeans as guttural noise, as gobbledygook, not fit for the transmission of more refined, high-minded ideas. (The damage wrought to the psyche of colonized people by internalizing this colonial mentality cannot be overstated, but the discussion of anticolonialism is often also considered rude….)

So you might say I’m kind of sensitive to this issue. :D

I could say the same about other mismatches of privilege vs. marginalization. Accusations of misogyny get tagged as rude more than actual misogyny. Accusations of homophobia get labeled as rude more than actual homophobia.

The ability to call something rude is itself an act of privilege. I’m not saying people shouldn’t do it, but a lot of times it papers over the actual offense. It’s exactly parallel to how calling someone a goddamn liar gets more villified than the actual lies.

(originally posted on FriendFeed)

Let’s face it. In the wake of this presidential election, especially during and after the presidential debates, much ink has been spilled and many photons have been emitted in regard to how President Obama was being rude by interrupting Mitt Romney’s lies.

This reflexively sets my teeth on edge.

A lot of it is the fact that calling something rude is a really easy way to stifle unpopular speech (which I try to articulate further in this Friendfeed thread.)

It is also grating how outright lies told politely can garner more respect than truth that is spoken in a manner that is deemed rude.

Ultimately, it comes down to a form versus content argument.

Now, I can understand how rejecting something based entirely on form alone can save people a lot of time. Obviously, every person should be allowed to determine what they’re comfortable with, and what they’re not. But prejudging things based on form can create a strong bias against those, who, for whatever reason, cannot meet the requisite form you require. They may not have the education or cultural competence. They may not have the luxury of time. They most likely have no way of reading your mind as to exactly what form you would be actually receptive to.

My problem with using form alone to prejudge content is that (1) I have been brainwashed since youth by the hoary cliché that I should never judge a book by its cover and (2) such a strategy is prone to error precisely because of these aforementioned biases.

Now, most of the time, the result of such an error is nothing more than temporary hurt feelings. Although sometimes it may cause long-lasting enmities. (And these are the most common results of most Internet arguments, and we need not go further.) But outside of the Internet, and depending on how powerful the person doing the prejudging is, it may actually cause long-term or permanent harm, but even then, it’s usually not something immediately life-threatening. But in my line of work, this does not always hold true.

Sure, maybe someone is being rude to me simply because they’re an asshole. But it’s also possible that someone is being rude to me because they’re afraid that I won’t take them seriously and won’t actually listen to what they have to say, and if I don’t listen to them, they may literally die. Or it could be that they’re being rude to me because they have a subdural hematoma and their frontal lobes are starting to get ischemic, causing a disinhibition syndrome. In other words, it behooves me to go straight to the content, and try to ignore the form as best as I can, even if they are seriously pissing me off. Because the content will still tell me if the guy is really just an asshole, or whether my own personal hangups and cultural prejudices are what are making me perceive him as being rude. Or maybe he’ll stop being rude because he’ll recognize that I’m actually listening to him. Or maybe I’ll realize that he’s actually brain-injured and needs immediate medical attention. Sure, ignoring the form and focusing on the content takes a whole hell of a lot more time, and it can involve a whole hell of a lot more mental discomfort, but it will also keep me from making horrific mistakes because I didn’t listen.

In the end, though, no one should be able to force you to listen to speech you’re not comfortable with, and that’s your prerogative. (As I’m wont to say, free speech lets me say whatever I want, but it doesn’t force you to listen.) But there is no universal objective standard for rudeness. As for many other things, the privileged get to set that standard. The marginalized just have to live with the standard. And privileging form over content can actually cause much misery.