There are many things I appreciate about The Future
(Netflix! Podcasts! Amazon.com!), but one we could do without is call-out
culture.
I'm not objecting to voicing concerns or even throwing down
about the ways in which minority groups (women, people of color, gays and
lesbians, trans people) are marginalized. As a member of one of those groups,
I'm glad that gone are the days of assuming that the world is for straight
white dudes and everyone else is just living there. That sucked. What bothers
me is the notion that being angry about that marginalization gives one license
to be an asshole.
Let's be clear about what it means to be an asshole. Having
and expressing an opinion is not being an asshole, nor is disagreeing with such
an opinion. Being an asshole is expressing an opinion in a way deliberately
calculated to annoy, insult, or intimidate. Example:
"I don't think the agenda you support is sensitive to,
or respectful of, the needs of the poor." – Good!
"You are an elitist dirtbag and a shill for the
corporate scum who rule this nation." – Asshole.
As you have probably already guessed, this example is
inspired by the news of Matt Bruenig, recently fired from Demos. I don't much
care for the way Bruenig conducts himself online; he's provocative only in that
he seems interested in provoking anger and not thought. Unfortunately, he's not
alone in his seeming belief that
righteousness justifies any and all reactions to real or perceived injustice.
Don't like what Joan Walsh said about Bernie Sanders? Call her old. Upset about
the way Neera Tanden speaks about welfare reform in the 90s? Accuse her of
trying to starve people.
That's being an asshole.
Don't imagine this is limited to
the sphere of political dialogue, or that it never goes beyond scorching tweets.
Anita Sarkeesian has suffered all manner of intimidation , including credible
death threats, because she dares to critique video games. (Disclaimer: I am a
fan of Feminist Frequency.) Lindsey Stone lost her job over a silly picture
that wound up on Facebook. Adria Richards inspired a sanctimob over a
questionable comment at Pycon, only to find that mob howling at her own door.
The folks who sent threats
or demanding firings were acting like assholes, but they believed they were
doing what was right. After all, how dare Sarkeesian criticize their beloved video
games? Does Stone think she can show disrespect to veterans and get away with
it? Richards got a guy fired, so doesn't she deserve what she gets?
The problem with self-righteousness
is that it can make actions that are clearly indefensible seem morally
justified. In my view, more harm is done by those who are sure they are right than by those who know they are wrong.
I'm not making a call for civility,
either. Sometimes debates get heated and people are less than polite, and
sometimes that's what needs to happen. This isn't tone-policing; it's objecting
to what is actually being said. If
the tone of a comment is making the speaker sound like an asshole, that tone
should be questioned. And if the tone of a comment is leading people to believe
they will be hurt or killed, then that tone most definitely should be policed. We're all aware that
we have freedom of speech, but I don't think anyone should be proud of speaking
like an asshole.
2 comments:
This. Somewhere along the line, the average American came to believe that free speech is an entitlement to say whatever we want carte blanche, consequences be damned. (Donald Trump, anyone?)
Maybe this is just me, but it also seems like people are even coming to believe that freedom of speech = freedom from consequence. Then they get all surprised when people actually judge them based on what they say when they act like an asshole in a public forum.
Somehow we really need to reframe free speech as the responsibility it is rather than as an entitlement. I feel like that would solve so many problems.
– Tim
Post a Comment