Read on Twitter
A word: yes, accountability is complex and fraught and the internet will never give it to you for free just because your callout tweet has high RTs, but people like to think that because they're not the same that one is acting out of malice or manipulation, that one is 'worse'.
I do believe we have to have holistic conversations about accountability--what do we do to rehabilitate those who do harm? how do we learn healthier ways to engage with each other without judgment?--but in lieu of that, we can only be accurately critical of the tools we do have.
I have no problem admitting that things that look like otherwise fair and accurate callouts can happen over clout, over intracommunity debate, as a proxy for harassment, and for all other bad reasons.
But calling public redress the same as harassment because accountability is complex is kind of like saying that because you *can* bludgeon a man with a hammer, they're bad carpentry tools.
Why aren't we asking about what kind of person bludgeons another man with a hammer?
Why aren't we asking about what kind of person bludgeons another man with a hammer?
All forms of punitive justice are less than ideal. I personally think finding ways to restore communities and give those who have harmed avenues for legitimate growth is good, because at the end of the day, against shitty systems all we will ever have is the community.
Whenever possible, we should leave none of our own behind--even and especially in their own harmful practices. But the work to do so should not be the work of those harmed, and sometimes the caliber of that harm requires public observation so others don't suffer.
That public observation is often also for the perpetrator to truly reckon with the harm caused and what is necessary to make amends with the community and with the self.
Improper application isn't an issue of the tool, it's an issue of the person wielding it, how, and why.
Improper application isn't an issue of the tool, it's an issue of the person wielding it, how, and why.
Put simply, if someone has done something wrong, observing it publicly is not an injustice to them.
If someone hasn't, then what is happening to them isn't public responsibility--it's harassment, plain and simple. Call that out as what it is, then.
If someone hasn't, then what is happening to them isn't public responsibility--it's harassment, plain and simple. Call that out as what it is, then.
Do I think observing each and every instance of this is difficult and taxing and sometimes even made impossible by resources and bad actors? Yeah, definitely. But that's also a responsibility of the work--to filter legitimate harm through decisive lenses of justice.
It's the same reason I believe calling for violent punitive responses to crime, even and especially heinous crime, is bad for the community--because it doesn't ask any questions about whether you really got the guy, or whether restoration is truly possible for them.
Do people in power still get to leverage that power to escape consequences? Of course. But part of that issue is how communities that should otherwise be collectively engaged in working together are instead actively being divided by systems.
It is especially because often other tools are not as responsible or as available that we should work to improve the community tools that are available so that real justice & improvement is possible, rather than writing them off as useless because bad actors may use them poorly.
(and another thing: yes, like many other punitive tools, this can often disproportionately be used to target, alienate & harm marginalised people! but the work should be to mitigate that while holding people responsible for real harm, not discarding the opportunity for justice.)
