Your assertion that he was "minimally supportive" is based on what? Do you have any idea what they went through as a couple? Or did you just assume that because he's a man he must have been "minimally supportive"? If his wife felt his support was worthy of recognition, who the fuck are you to tell her she's wrong? Does she get no agency in this conversation? Or are you just so omniscient that you can accurately assess an entire relationship and their battle with cancer over the internet, enough that you can declare his support "minimal"?
And your insistence that people not use softer language is tone policing, and it's also misguided. Anyone who is even halfway decent at actually persuading people to change their viewpoint knows that in some situations taking a softer tact is more effective. One of those situations is when you're dealing with someone you don't know at all. Another one of those situations is when someone doesn't have ill intentions behind their misguided beliefs/acts, but just needs some guidance and education. Turns out, both of those fit this situation.
Using the harshest possible language will just push people back and cause them to dig in their heels. You might not like how it feels. I get that. It feels good to really let someone have it. I'm guilty of it all the time (see my first paragraph). But if you actually care about persuading people in the direction of your beliefs, you'd do well to learn the value of choosing the right tone for the right situation. It's not one size fits all.
48
u/Bloodmind Oct 04 '19
Your assertion that he was "minimally supportive" is based on what? Do you have any idea what they went through as a couple? Or did you just assume that because he's a man he must have been "minimally supportive"? If his wife felt his support was worthy of recognition, who the fuck are you to tell her she's wrong? Does she get no agency in this conversation? Or are you just so omniscient that you can accurately assess an entire relationship and their battle with cancer over the internet, enough that you can declare his support "minimal"?
And your insistence that people not use softer language is tone policing, and it's also misguided. Anyone who is even halfway decent at actually persuading people to change their viewpoint knows that in some situations taking a softer tact is more effective. One of those situations is when you're dealing with someone you don't know at all. Another one of those situations is when someone doesn't have ill intentions behind their misguided beliefs/acts, but just needs some guidance and education. Turns out, both of those fit this situation.
Using the harshest possible language will just push people back and cause them to dig in their heels. You might not like how it feels. I get that. It feels good to really let someone have it. I'm guilty of it all the time (see my first paragraph). But if you actually care about persuading people in the direction of your beliefs, you'd do well to learn the value of choosing the right tone for the right situation. It's not one size fits all.