As I get older I feel this subtle-but-strong pressure to become more “professional” – more “civil”, more “mature”, more even-handed. Most of the time this is a good thing. But I’ve also discovered that sometimes this impulse can mean tolerating things we shouldn’t tolerate
There’s no nice way to say it: some people are assholes. The mature thing to do is to focus on the behavior, not the person. But regardless, asshole behavior is real, and it’s a problem – a huge problem, actually, because assholism has a way of hijacking and derailing good things
Tolerating asshole behavior is a choice that can seem neutral – by refusing to intervene, we can perpetuate the myth that we’ve kept our hands clean. And intervention is often messy, and often very costly to the interventionist(s). It’s also sometimes the right thing to do.
Of course, it’s not ALWAYS the right thing to do. This is partially what the stereotype of the rude, disruptive & unproductive SJW is rooted in. I’ve met self-described SJWs who are total assholes. It’s *complicated*. Reality often is. Let’s try and tease it apart layer by layer?
The other part (whether it’s the bigger or smaller part depends on your context) of the stereotype of the shitty SJW is invented by assholes who use character assassination to avoid accountability for their actions. Lots to consider when trying to make sense of what’s up
In my experience, lots of people (most?) want quiet, not justice for others. Here’s a depressingly common scenario: something bad is happening, and nobody notices… until someone draws attention to it. The fastest, easiest way to solve the scenario is to get rid of the *person*.
“If you see something, say something”
Person: *sees something, says something*
Boss: Ah, well. I don’t see anything. Does anyone else see anything?
Everyone else: *silent*
Boss: Seems like you need your eyes checked, mate! Maybe you’re not cut out for this environment?
There’s a non-zero chance that the person might’ve gotten a false positive. That said, in my experience (which is limited), most serious people who decide to report something *agonize* over it. They second-guess themselves, cross-reference with friends and peers. “Am I crazy?”
Circling back – let’s talk about assholes and civility. Most people recognise that Prof. Umbridge in Harry Potter was a polite asshole – and this often made people hate her even more than Voldemort, who was more of a sincere asshole. It’s easy to get into a semantic mess here…
Simplistically, I think there are two variables: Power – the ability to influence the outcome materially. Withholding someone’s paycheck. Pointing a gun in their face Language – the words you use, but also the format, the theatrics, your outfit. It’s the whole package
People with power and privilege have the luxury of being able to be infinitely civil, and to demand it of others. (Sometimes powerful people still manage to be utterly disrespectful, coarse and uncouth in their language. I feel embarrassed for them. But they’re easy to deal with)
People who are disenfranchised are often understandably unwilling to expend time and energy keeping up the appearance of civility. If your child was wrenched from your arms, I think most would agree that you deserve a few swear words at the people who took her from you.
Just got reminded of a quote that’s thematically relevant:
There’s another quote somewhere about how non-violence resistance movements work – they work because violence doesn’t, and violence doesn’t because the moment you’re violent, those with more power are justified in using MORE violence to clamp you down, detain you, beat you
Do you see the game here? If you have power, you can maintain a veneer of civility while using your power (or even the implied threat of it!) to contain your victims in a difficult scenario – push them (legally, civilly) until they slip up. Then politely unleash hell on their ass
This is the same game that allows someone to be a robber-baron of sorts, amass wealth through maybe-unscrupulous means, then white-wash their reputation through subsequent acts of charity. I’m not calling out anybody here, just the game itself
The game is also extremely… gameable. It‘s not hard for a powerful asshole to earn public sympathy by doing a PR campaign focused on the worst of his enemies. People are terrible at coordinating actions. Somebody’s going to say something overboard (eg threatening children)
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.” I find myself thinking about the CNN town hall where the Stoneman Douglas shooting survivors – *kids* – were grilling their representatives with hard questions about funding
Correct me if I’m wrong (I might be!) – it seemed to me that the kids were asking harder questions than journalists usually do. Is this true? If so, why? My guess is that it’s because the kids are freer than journalists, who may have to worry about maintaining relationships