A thought process I experienced this evening

[azurelunatic]

1: make literal, factual observation about my own personal state.
2: find the thought vaguely amusing, and think about sharing it with the internet.
3: realize in horror that the root of the amusement is "this statement is used as an oppressive insult by a specific brand of asshat, and here I am using it literally, ha ha ha"
4: get cranky about asshats of all descriptions spoiling either existing or brand-new words and phrases by using them as bludgeons
5: wonder whether the taxonomically specific type of asshat I first blamed is the correct one
6: realize that any public expression of crankiness on my part over blaming the asshats in question would very likely get derailed by people railing at the misclassification of the asshats, and further derailed by people railing right back that it didn't matter
7: decide to go further up the taxonomic tree when talking about those asshats
8: suddenly recall at least two incidents involving at least two separate individuals who managed to either actually or nearly touch off incidents involving the taxonomic nature of various and sundry misclassified asshats
9: remember the advice I gave to one of them as a substitute for keelhauling, which my brain has been turning over and adding to. It's perhaps hastily phrased here, but the general structure is this:

If you ever feel it necessary to enter into a conversation about real or fictional asshattery in order to correct someone's taxonomy of the asshats, for the love of Pete, please preface your statement with something approximating "[The asshat(s) in question is/are] asshats, and their behavior and effects on others is kind of generally deplorable."

Otherwise, no matter how much you actually do think that the asshats in question are behaving scummily and should kind of not do those things, without that explicit disclaimer, the derailing effect of the taxonomic interruption runs a chance of convincing the other parties to the discussion that you are defending the asshats. So if that is not something you wanted to do, you are going to have to explain why the taxonomic category you are putting these asshats into is just as bad, and sometimes, why you are butting into the discussion at all.

Some conversations are okay with being rerouted into taxonomic quibbling. Some discussions are very not. Those discussions, maybe you should consider making your observation not in the middle of it, and for the love of little blue-white flames not consuming your entire internet presence, maybe explain why it's still bad.

Comments

[ankaret]

OMG THIS. It's amazing how many people think the 'these people are asshats and I do not condone their asshattery' is silent.

[elf]

There is a similar phenomenon in copyright/ebook discussions (is related to asshattery, I promise), in which Person A announces, "I am an author and I found my book listed on one of those pay-for-membership ebook download sites and THOSE PEOPLE ARE THIEVES." And Person B replies, "those people are indeed scumbags, but they are not 'thieves;' they are 'copyright infringers,' which is (1) not theft, (2) a more serious offense, although often only available to civil recourse, and (3) dude, calm down; there's no evidence that your book being available on a zillion torrents actually affects sales."

To which a dozen people will reply "torrents DO impact sales; every download is a lost sale; those people are LITERALLY TAKING MONEY FROM AUTHORS POCKETS." (I wish I were exaggerating here.) And others will insist that "thief" is indeed the correct word for them, because that's what you call someone who takes something from someone else. And then the debate will devolve into pointless (by which I mean: unsupported by real data on either side) debates about whether torrents do or do not affect sales, and pointless (by which I mean: not going to affect the reality of what happens one bit) debates about whether "thief" or "copyright infringer" is the correct terminology.

And anyone on the "torrents don't lose sales" or "thief is the wrong word" side tends to be accused of supporting illegal mass distribution of ebooks, no matter how many times they say "those people are lawbreaking scumbags and they should be stopped.") (If they say, "those people are not lawbreakers in their nation of residence," they are thoroughly reviled for supporting scumbaggery. And theft.)

Anyway. Back to the asshattery. It is, indeed, a standard debate problem, that when someone brings up an example of Awful Behavior, people who try to categorize the Awful Behavior are often told that the category is irrelevant and the point is that all good-thinking people must stand up and denounce the Awful Behavior.

It's taken me a while to learn to insist that I don't condone the Awful Behavior, not only before starting the categorizing process, but as often as possible while involved in the debate. It was easier to learn which discussions do not welcome the categorization subdebate; I don't spend time in author forums because of that.

[onyxlynx]

Words of wisdom.

Hmmmm... I necessarily distinguish, you make overdelicate categories, they nitpick?

[siderea]

This would be a specific case of the general problem for which I recommend the heuristic always explicate the value judgment -- the problem being, "If you don't explicate the value judgment you are expressing, or that you are not expressing a value judgment, other people will attribute one to you."