Read on Twitter
There is a fundamental difference between being harassed and being made to account for a harmful decision.
What truly sucks and is worthy of discussion (but is, to be sure, NOT CANCELING) is how many people find joy in the former when we should be in the latter mode.
What truly sucks and is worthy of discussion (but is, to be sure, NOT CANCELING) is how many people find joy in the former when we should be in the latter mode.
It is fair to say that many people really do feel like theyâre suffering some inhumane thing in the face of an error they didnât mean, or because people are extrapolating the intent of their action into something crueler than it had been. True or no, thatâs their feeling.
What makes it difficult for us to reconcile with that feeling is the challenge of observing how the conversation is taking place: whether there are people âin our ranksâ finding joy in taking someone down a peg, arguing for their (or our) general hypocrisy, or just being cruel.
If Twitter is âa public placeâ, then being ratioâd does feel like being confronted with a group of people. Whether it feels like a deserved protest or an angry mob, then, can be proportional to whether theyâd saying âyou shouldnât have done thisâ or âdie [slur] [slur], fuck youâ.
I do think we need to be better equipped to acknowledge that social media isnât an ideal place to call people out often precisely because people take this as the moment to be their worst selves under the cover of being our alliesâthe allies of justice and goodwill.
They do it because they know that it reads as US being THEIR allies. They do it especially when the subject of a callout is marginalised because it puts you at a crossroads between defending the victim (read: excusing them) or defending the harasser (read: endorsing harassment).
They do it because our mind is so reactive that all it takes is a fraction of bad actors for the victim to associate all of a given comments section with abuse, and their reluctance to engage will be good cause for further callouts, which gives harassers more and better cover.
The resulting message is unfortunate: the idea that especially critical justice-minded digital actors work by the creed that abuse is never justifiedâunless of course someone had it coming. I am personally of the belief that it isnât, has never been, & mustnât be the case.
Especially when the recipient has done real harm, we risk delegitimising the effort of public awareness if it is potentially subsumed by people behaving badly under cover of critique.
Whatâs worse, their bad behavior also becomes legitimized by using the cover of even mild critique to create false flags against others, hoping to generate that further abuse, accusing us of letting our friends off the hook when really, the only harm in effect is the harasserâs.
I think it is more than necessary to be critical of each otherâs actions, and to bring them to light early and often if they wonât accept them. But be wary of peopleâs intentions, tooâif they are marred by cruelty, clout, or a desire to devalue the movement, you donât need them.
Accepting the complexity of even the worst-behaved person isnât just necessary to see whether they seek growth or not. Itâs also useful to see if those we think are aligned with us on defending space are also willing to use that goal to hurt each other, and respond accordingly.
(ETA: also donât underestimate bad actorsâ capacity to create bad behavior in these situations precisely to label the scene as angry and cruel so they can cast a smokescreen over the accusedâs actions. Yet another reason to challenge that bad behavior before it sticks on you.)
