Derailing

Or, what not to say to people who are telling you something sad

Kim Burchett, Fish Novosad, Jonathan Reid, Margaret Mitchell,
and an awesome network of many other anonymous people.


"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
-- Winston Churchill

What is derailing?

Derailing describes patterns of behavior which shift the focus of a conversation away from the original topic of discussion. It can result in either silencing someone's opinion or distracting from what they wish to discuss, and may undermine what otherwise could have been a real attempt at education or solution finding.

Derailing is usually not intentional. It can often be difficult for people to realize when they're derailing a conversation. Whether you have been told you are derailing or you are dealing with someone you feel is derailing, try to assume good intent, and hesitate before deciding someone is a jerk.

Derailing is tangled up with structural inequality. In discussions about inequality, repeated derailing can have the effect of frustrating any attempt to engage in public conversation about the perspective of marginalized individuals. Derailing can therefore contribute to preexisting patterns of privilege and marginalization.

How should I respond to derailing?

Realize that identifying a derailment requires courage. Someone who points out a derailment is signaling that their needs were not met in the conversation. By asking a coworker to be more thoughtful when communicating, they may expose themselves to criticism or reputational damage. Listening to them demonstrates respect for their courage.

If you are told that a comment you made was derailing, try to respond constructively. Use your best judgement and be mindful that arguing about a derailment can in and of itself derail the conversation further. If someone points you to this document, assume they did so with good intentions. Don't demand a detailed contextual explanation for why they felt your comment was derailing; the whole point of this document is to remove the need for such explanations. Constructive responses include re-focusing attention on the structural problem, active listening, thinking of ways you personally can help, starting a separate discussion (e.g., by starting a new thread), or even just dropping the subject.

What is this document?

This document is primarily a catalog of common derailing anti-patterns. It was created in order to make it easy to call out those patterns without feeling obligated to provide extensive explanation.

Inspired by the placeholder names Alice and Bob, we use names beginning with A to represent marginalized roles, and names beginning with B to represent a privileged role. It is important to realize that these names describe roles, not people. Real people are usually marginalized in some dimensions (gender, race, disability, age, and more) and situations (work, home, travel, and more), while privileged in other dimensions and situations. To emphasize this diversity, we choose different names in every section.

The content is based on our own experiences, and adaptation from Derailing 101 and Derailing for Dummies by rewriting those sources to use a gentler tone, the better to be heard.

Derailing anti-patterns

In this section we describe several ways a conversation can be derailed. In all of them the result is to silence or distract from what Alice said. Keep in mind the critical difference between Alice (marginalized) and Bob (privileged) and remember that derailing is not primarily about whether Alice takes offense; it is about whether or not Bob's comments tend to reinforce inequalities that already pervade society.
You can use the links below to link individuals to specific sections of this doc.

Demanding education
Tone argument
Happens to everybody
False analogy
Other Side
Oversensitive
Nit picking
Intent
Splaining
Special snowflake
Oppression olympics
Disqualification
Tangent
Strawman
Just Be Positive

Demanding education

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Allison points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Bodhi responds by asking Allison to provide further explanation, studies, articles, or anecdotes.
Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "Is that really a common problem?"
• "If you won't educate me how can I learn?"
• "If you actually cared about this issue you'd be willing to give examples."

This can frustrate Allison because:

• Implying that Allison has an obligation to educate Bodhi centers the discussion on Bodhi, and distracts from Allison's original point.
• Allison might not be good at this kind of education. As the Bodhi-to-Allison ratio increases, education takes more and more of Allison's time. This is the same principle as the Petrie Multiplier.
• Since Allison isn't paid for the (significant) time spent on educating Bodhi this amounts to a tax on marginalized groups, which reinforces Allison's marginalization.
• If Allison doesn't have time and just gives up instead, there is an implication that her point is unfounded.
• Repeatedly answering questions documented in FAQs can interfere with more advanced discussion.

What to do instead:

• Be receptive to suggestions to do some independent research before participating further. For example, this may require reading up on Women's Studies, African American Studies, etc.
• Politely asking for pointers is fine, but don't expect a one-off walk-through of the issues, or a justification for facts that others consider long established.
• If you don't have time to do research, that's OK, but don't blame Allison. You can say "I need to learn more about this before I weigh in."
• Seek a personal explanation or discussion with a trusted friend, manager, mentor, or HR.

Tone argument

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Aditya points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Beth responds by objecting to his tone or style and ignoring the substance of his comment. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "I would have agreed if you had said it more nicely."
• "You're not going to convince anyone like that."
• "Your hostility only damages your cause."
• "You sound like a child."
• Frequently combined with Oversensitive.

This can frustrate Aditya because:

• It focuses on what Aditya is doing wrong instead of the bias that he is pointing out.
• Aditya may need to be able to vent frustration or anger
• It's reasonable for him to feel angry when bias occurs.
• The tone argument denies the possibility of Beth becoming educated despite (or perhaps because of) Aditya's hostility

What to do instead:

• Show compassion for Aditya as a fellow human who is hurting.
• Recognize the courage it took to for Aditya to say anything at all. Speaking up is often frightening, and can risk retaliation from coworkers.
• Respond to the substance of Aditya's statement. If you see no substance, then there is no need to engage in debate.
• Don't tune Aditya out. Anger may be an indication that something important is happening.
• Consider composing a draft reply and then waiting a day before sending it.

Paul Graham's essay "How to Disagree" described "tone" as the third-least-useful technique of disagreement.

Happens to everybody

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Andrea points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Bayan responds by saying the same thing also happens to her and therefore isn't really an example of bias so much as a universal fact of life. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "But that happens to me too."
• Frequently combined with Oversensitive and False Analogy.

This can frustrate Andrea because:

• Bayan is dismissing Andrea's initial interpretation.
• Bayan is (unintentionally) redirecting the conversation to be about the experience/feelings of a privileged group instead of that of the marginalized group.
• Although Bayan has experienced similar examples of bias, Andrea might encounter them much more frequently, as part of a consistent pattern rather than a handful of isolated incidents.
• One of the hallmarks of privilege is the remarkable stream of individually unremarkable events that just happen to break your way. Similarly, oppression is frequently experienced as rarely being able to get the kind of break you deserve.

What to do instead:

• Keep the discussion centered on Andrea's perspective and experience.
• Bayan may share her personal experiences in order to express empathy, but she should avoid implying that they are of the same nature.
• Talk to the person whose behavior was "misinterpreted" and ask them to be aware of their impact on others. That way members of the marginalized group aren't the only ones who receive negative feedback.

False analogy

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Alessandro points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Brittany responds by making a comparison that fails to reflect the unequal nature of society. This type of derailment is often intended to make Alessandro feel that he's being hypocritical. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "If you reverse the situation ..."
• "What about men who ...?"
• "It makes me uncomfortable when you point out that you are uncomfortable".
• "By pointing out race you're being racist."
• Frequently combined with Happens to Everybody.

This can frustrate Alessandro because:

• Brittany is denying that systemic privilege exists, or denying that it is relevant.
• Being subjected to bias for belonging to a marginalized group is generally worse than being subjected to bias for benefitting from privilege.

What to do instead:

• Keep the discussion centered on Alessandro's perspective and experience.
• When making an analogy, don't assume that inferences you make in one domain can be directly transferred to the other.
• Make sure that power imbalances are preserved when making comparisons. For example, don't compare female engineers to male nurses.

Other Side

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Afra points out an instance of (unconscious) bias from an individual, and Ben immediately responds by representing the other individual's viewpoint. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "From his point of view..."
• "But I think what he meant was..."
• "He was just trying to..."
• Frequently combined with Just Be Positive

This can frustrate Afra because:

• This pattern does not give Afra the benefit of the doubt that she knows what she's talking about and is well-rounded in her decision to discuss the issue.
• Ben's response perpetuates the idea that (unconscious) bias does not happen from well-meaning individuals.

What to do instead:

• Understand that what you think the other person meant to say/convey is a separate issue from whether what they did say/convey was an instance of (unconscious) bias.
• Ask your colleague how long this has been going on, and what you can do to help.
• Talk to your colleague about the effect it had on them, and acknolwedge that if they felt uncomfortable,it is worth taking seriously -- regardless of the individual's viewpoint.
• Ask your colleague if it would be helpful if you tried to represent the other individual's viewpoint if you would like to, but recognize that the only person who knows the real viewpoint of the individual is that individual, and you may not have a better understanding than your colleague (even if you've known the individual longer).

Oversensitive

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Ana points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Bob responds by saying Ana needs to learn to be less sensitive. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "You just have to let these things go."
• "You're being oversensitive."
• "It's just a joke. Lighten up!"
• Frequently combined with Happens to Everybody.

This can frustrate Ana because:

• Some comments can genuinely hurt people or make them feel excluded. If Bob wants the culture to be one of acceptance, he must be willing to change how he speaks in order to make people feel more welcome.
• Bob may be underestimating how often Ana is exposed to this kind of bias, or to related kinds of bias. Repeated exposure can be debilitating; this is known as death by a thousand cuts.
• Telling Ana how to feel or think is arrogant, and invalidates her perspective.
• Repeatedly insisting that Ana is misinterpreting reality can cause her to doubt her own experience. This is called gaslighting.

What to do instead:

• Think about what could cause Ana to react to the bias in this way; assume that Ana is a reasonable person who has had a different experience. If Bob had had the same experience, he might have the same conclusions.
• Respect Ana's right to decide her own feelings.

The American Psychological Association's article "Unmasking 'racial micro aggressions'" discusses the cumulative impact of minor slights and of stereotype threat.

Nit picking

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Aaron points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Bianca responds by refuting a point that is not central to Aaron's argument. Also known as missing the forest for the trees. This can frustrate Aaron because:

• Bianca ignored the central point, which can appear unsympathetic or even dismissive.
• Aaron may think Bianca is attempting to refute Aaron's central point, but using an inadequate argument to do so.
• If Aaron's central point was drawn partly from his personal experience then this may feel to him like a personal attack.

What to do instead:

• Start by addressing the central point. This is not just a rhetorical trick, it's how humans communicate efficiently. For example "I agree that [central point] is a serious issue, however [minor point] seems factually incorrect" or "I disagree with [central point] and here is why".
• Avoid the impression that you are poking holes for sport, entertainment, or spite.
• Avoid using "but I'm an engineer, that's how I'm wired!" as an excuse for nit picking. To be effective in your job, you need a sense of which details matter, and to keep the goal in mind.

Intent

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Amanda points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Byung-joon replies that he didn't intend to offend, but without actually apologizing or attempting to heal the damage. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "You're missing my point."
• "I never said ____, I said ____."

This can frustrate Amanda because:

• By not taking responsibility for the consequences of his actions, Byung-joon places the full burden of dealing with those consequences on Amanda.

What to do instead:

• Keep the discussion centered on Amanda's perspective and experience.
• Apologize for the effect, regardless of intent, and ask how to help.

Splaining

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Amani points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Beatriz responds in a condescending or patronizing manner, by telling Amani how she should feel about it, or that her opinion is wrong. A key ingredient of splaining is that Beatriz assumes she knows more than Amani about the subject in question; respectful disagreement is not an example of splaining. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "You should take it as a compliment."
• "What you need to understand is..."

This can frustrate Amani because:

• Telling Amani how to feel or think is arrogant and invalidates her perspective.
• Beatriz may be misunderstanding the issue or even be outright wrong in her conclusions.

What to do instead:

• Listen instead of speaking.
• Do enough research to be able to express your thoughts according to how the marginalized group in question frames the issue. For example, read up on Women's Studies, African American Studies, etc.
• Think about what could cause Amani to react to the bias in this way; assume that Amani is a reasonable person who has had a different experience. If Beatriz had had the same experience, she might have the same conclusions.

See also this article for a discussion of splaining in the context of race, or this article for a discussion of splaining in the context of both race and gender.

Special snowflake

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Alice points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Clara, who is from the same marginalized group as Alice, responds by saying that because she didn't take offense, neither should Alice. (A related form of this anti-pattern is if Bob uses something Clara said previously to dismiss Alice.) Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "I have a ____ friend who isn't offended by this."
• "A ____ on my team isn't offended by this; maybe you're just sensitive."
• "I'm a ____ and I don't think this is a big deal."

This can frustrate Alice because:

• Telling Alice how to feel is arrogant. It also reinforces structural inequality even if Clara isn't a member of a privileged group.
• Alice's experience is just as valid as Clara's.

What to do instead:

• Clara should add her voice, not replace Alice's voice.
• Think about what could cause Alice to react to the bias in this way; assume that Alice is a reasonable person who has had a different experience. If Clara had had the same experience, she might have the same conclusions.

See also xkcd 385.

Oppression olympics

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Abiyo points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Bob responds by claiming a different marginalized group has it worse, so Abiyo shouldn't complain. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "Why are you talking about ____ when ____ is so much worse?"

This can frustrate Abiyo because:

• It deflects from a particular kind of bias by denying its legitimacy or existence, downplaying its importance, or simply switching the focus to another group.
• It ignores intersectionality.

What to do instead:

• Keep the discussion centered on Abiyo's perspective and experience.
• Respect that all forms of bias are regrettable, and working to fix one form doesn't distract from or diminish the importance of any of the others.
• If you have a more important issue in mind, advocate for it. But not here, not now. Start a new conversation later, in a context where Abiyo isn't going to reject it as an obvious attempt to distract from his concerns.

See also Not As Bad As on Rational Wiki.

Disqualification

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Armin points out an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Bella responds by refusing to accept that Armin is a member of the marginalized group in question. For example, Bella may claim that even though Armin is from a non-English-speaking country, the fact that he speaks fluent English means he isn't qualified to talk about what life is like in his home country. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "You're not really a ____ because ..."
• "But you don't look like a ____"

This can frustrate Armin because:

• It attempts to ban Armin's personal experience from the conversation.
• It gives more weight to stereotypes than to actual people.
• It ignores intersectionality, which is the recognition that everyone experiences bias differently, because of other facets of who they are.

What to do instead:

• Recognize that all social groups have people with wildly different experiences and backgrounds.

Tangent

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Anton says something, and Bruno responds by pursuing a tangential or irrelevant topic. It's worth emphasizing that unlike most of the other anti-patterns in this document, this one does not require that the original topic was about bias. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "That actually reminds me a lot of ____ ..."

This can frustrate Anton because:

• Anton's contributions to the discussion may be overlooked or drowned out. If this happens repeatedly Anton may internalize that his thoughts are unimportant, and he may stop contributing at all.
• It implies Anton's problems are less important than random trivia.

What to do instead:

• Show consideration for your colleague discussing a serious problem.
• Have the tangential conversation separately.

Strawman

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Amelia says something, and Bill argues against her point by pursuing a tangential or irrelevant topic that is often easy to defeat. Similar to Tangent, and unlike most of the other anti-patterns in this document, this one does not require that the original topic was about bias. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• A: "I would like to have as many women as men in our lab."
  B: "Lowering our standards for acceptance is a really bad move."

Here, Amelia is making a point about wanting equal representation between two genders, while Bill is responding as if she had proposed to lower the standards. Bill is presenting his point as if it is denoted or directly implied by Amelia's point -- but it is not. This can confuse the conversation to move it into Bill's topic, as well as entirely misconstruing Amelia's original point and blocking further discussion on it. This can frustrate Amelia because:

• Amelia's point may get lost in the rest of the discussion.
• Bill's points may make it seem like Amelia was saying something she was not.
• Bill can successfully argue against Amelia, when Amelia was not trying to engage in an argument.

What to do instead:

• Show consideration for your colleague discussing a serious problem.
• Read or listen carefully to what your colleague is actually saying, instead of what you feel is being implied by it.
• If you want to discuss something that you feel is implied, present that as an implication that you are drawing -- not as if they are facts presented by your colleague.

Also see: Straw man

Just Be Positive

[direct link]

This conversational anti-pattern starts when Abir brings up an instance of (unconscious) bias, and Brett responds by telling Abir that s/he should just be more positive, optimistic, and to try to see the best in people. Although this is a great rule of thumb for everyone, it can be unproductive to bring it up when a serious issue is being presented. Telltale hints of this anti-pattern:

• "Your problem is you need to be more optimistic."
• "I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt."
• "Assume the best intentions..."

This can frustrate Abir because:

• It places blame on Abir for not being positive, rather than acknowledging the seriousness of a bias situation.
• Brett is assuming that they better understand how to deal with the situation than Abir does, even though Brett is not in Abir's situation and has not had Abir's life experiences.
• It assumes that Abir has not already spent time being optimistic, seeing the best in people, etc., before bringing up the instance of bias.
• Abir is not necessarily making the point that the person is being biased intentionally -- if it's unconscious bias, it's unintentional, meaning that the person in the instance of bias likely does< have the best intentions, and yet their actions manifest in unconscious biased treatment of Abir.
• It dismisses the importance of Abir bringing up the instance.
• It ignores that Abir is likely very knowledgeable about the nuances of the situation, and has chosen to bring it up with that insight and knowledge.

What to do instead:

• Read or listen carefully to what your colleague is saying.
• Ask how long the issue has been going on, and what are some positive outcomes and goals that your colleague would like to reach.
• Help your colleage to achieve the positive outcomes and goals they're reaching for, rather than changing the conversation to be about mindsets and perspectives.