Do you really want to know my answer? Like seriously, are you actually open to listening to what my answer may be and absorbing any new information I may offer on the topic?
Because from here it doesn’t seem like you are.
Let’s be honest with each other, you started out with the phrase “why do you think it’s ok” which is aggressive language, and then you justified your disagreement with your identity. Which I always found to be an interesting tactic, because when this clarification exists in an argument it assumes that by having this particular set of identities you are somehow more qualified to discuss this problem than someone else, while at the same time personalizing you so it is harder for anyone to disagree with you.
You then use the words hurtful, and then offensive. Both button words that illicit a certain type of response, hurtful in how inarguable it is. That is your feeling and I would never argue what a stranger is feeling to them. Then there is offensive, which is a word that is very well used in the LGBT+ community to discuss important issues surrounding our dehumanization.
I don’t think that this message was a carefully crafted masterpiece of debate and trickery that you spent hour figuring out the direct phrasing of obviously, but I do think you had an intent when you wrote this message and the words you chose make that intent clear.
You don’t want to talk to me. Hell I doubt you even follow me. I have anonymous turned off on my ask box, but I am almost 100% sure that if I didn’t you would be sending this under the little sunglasses wearing icon.
Also if you checked my FAQ you would have found a helpful little link explaining to you my views on the queer discourse. You may have noticed that I have my own reasons why I decide to use that word, and my own history with it. You probably also would have seen my post saying that I don’t mind people disagreeing with me. Or you could have seen that I have a link set up that blocks the word from all my content so no one has to see it if they don’t want to, and they can still have access to the history that I give insight into.
But you didn’t care about that did you? Because you aren’t actually interested in what I have to say, if you were you would have already seen all of this and you would have seen my request for people to stop asking me to drag out my arguments for why I use the word again and again. You probably would have realized that either A) it is a lost cause so why bother B) that I have nothing left to say on the matter that I haven’t already said and you may have respected my professional boundaries enough to leave it alone.
But here we are, you uninformed and angry, and me annoyed and tired. We aren’t going to have a good dialogue, and I am near certain you wouldn’t have accepted one if I offered it. You are not here to change my mind, because I have to assume that you at least did a basic check to see that my entire project has the word queer in it and it is pretty clear that isn’t changing. And you are also not here to have your mind changed.
And to be honest I have no desire to change your mind. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me on this. It actually isn’t that big of a deal to me if someone doesn’t agree with my viewpoints all the time.
I have read a lot of arguments in favour of removing the word from our lexicon completely. I disagree, but I understand them. As I have said before, this isn’t a huge dividing point for me.
I have given people access to my work without the word queer in it, and that is the extent of what I am going to do here.
So why are you sending this in? Nothing is going to change from it, and honestly it is a pretty boring message so I can’t believe you thought something would.
I think the sole reason you sent this was performative.
You wanted to show that you tried to convince that big mean queer person without actually trying to convince them. Maybe this was a performance; for your followers, maybe you will screenshot my response and share them in a group chat. Or it is also possible this is a performance for yourself, maybe you want to convince yourself that you are doing something.
Maybe you feel ineffective or like you need to make a difference so you are sending this message to me to feel proud of yourself for trying to change something that you don’t like.
But you aren’t doing this to actually do the hard work of changing something.
And it is fine if you aren’t able to do that work for any reason, but leave other people out of your sense of inadequacy. I am not here to be your punching bag that you hit so you can feel big and strong.
I am tired, and I am bored of people sending me this performative garbage.
Which of course lends itself to the question, why am I answering this publicly?
I will admit there is a little bit of performance from my side as well, I want people to see how right I am and how much this behavior sucks. I want people to see me destroying this ask, and I am not going to lie I am totally going to send screenshots to the group chat.
What makes us different, is that I didn’t seek this performance out. I clearly did not send this to myself, and I haven’t made a post about the queer discourse in months. Which means, this person had to search for me so that they could get mad at me. Whereas I just had to check my inbox this morning and respond to what was there.
But outside of the performance of it all, I want my answer to sit with you for a couple of days. I don’t care if I change your mind about the queer discourse because honestly I do not care about the queer discourse. But I do want to change something. I want you to stop sending asks like these, because this doesn’t seem like it is your first.
And if you were just sending them to me I would be fine with it. I can delete asks, and they roll off my back if I decide to let them. But not everyone is like that.
I could now give a rant about the little baby queers I am protecting, but it is not just about them. It is about all of the people you send this kind of thing to (who almost certainly don’t deserve hate mail), whether they are affected deeply by it or not it doesn’t make what you are doing any better.
And if me writing this long message publicly makes it less likely for you to send something like this again, then it is worth the five minutes I have spent crafting it. Because if you are a little more self conscious about doing something like this again, then hopefully I will have spared a couple of people the annoyance of having to deal with this kind of garbage message.
This is also a very educational response because it takes apart the question in a very useful way. A good exercise for those of you who are interested in rhetoric and logic in discourse.
It’s also a good insight into the motivations and psychology of people when they send this type of messages. It’s couched as a personal attack on you (and it is!) but behind that is a person who is working through stuff badly, and trying to assign the blame for that to a different person (you). By studying that, you can understand more about the Discourse and the motivations behind it. It can also help to heal you (and others) from attacks of this type. When I read the initial ask, it made my body flinch: I felt that I myself was being publicly attacked by a strange and hurtful person, and that I had to defend myself, flooded with instinctive responses. Seeing the blogger’s thoughtful response calmed me.
I have posted about survivorship bias and how it affects your career choices: how a Hollywood actor giving the classic “follow your dreams and never give up” line is bad advice and is pure survivorship bias at work.
When I read up on the wikipedia page, I encountered an interesting story:
During WWII the US Air Force wanted to minimize bomber losses to enemy fire. The Center for Naval Analyses ran a research on where bombers tend to get hit with the explicit aim of enforcing the parts of the airframe that is most likely to receive incoming fire. This is what they came up with:
So, they said: the red dots are where bombers are most likely to be hit, so put some more armor on those parts to make the bombers more resilient. That looked like a logical conclusion, until Abraham Wald – a mathematician – started asking questions:
– how did you obtain that data? – well, we looked at every bomber returning from a raid, marked the damages on the airframe on a sheet and collected the sheets from all allied air bases over months. What you see is the result of hundreds of those sheets. – and your conclusion? – well, the red dots are where the bombers were hit. So let’s enforce those parts because they are most exposed to enemy fire. – no. the red dots are where a bomber can take a hitand return. The bombers that took a hit to the ailerons, the engines or the cockpit never made it home. That’s why they are absent in your data. The blank spots are exactly where you have to enforce the airframe, so those bombers can return.
This is survivorship bias. You only see a subset of the outcomes. The ones that made it far enough to be visible. Look out for absence of data. Sometimes they tell a story of their own.
BTW: You can see the result of this research today. This is the exact reason the A-10 has the pilot sitting in a titanium armor bathtub and has it’s engines placed high and shielded.
If you want to think scientifically, ALWAYS ask what data was included in a conclusion. And ALWAYS ask what data was EXCLUDED when making a conclusion.
If they have excluded information because “it doesn’t exist” or “it was too hard to get” or “it was good data but was provided by people we don’t like”, then that is a BIG RED FLAG that the analysis was flawed.
Another example of this is originally doctor’s thought smoking protected people from developing dementia until someone pointed out it was because smokers didn’t usually live long enough to get the most common forms.
When I was younger I was very right-wing. I mean…very right-wing. I won’t go into detail, because I’m very deeply ashamed of it, but whatever you’re imagining, it’s probably at least that bad. I’ve taken out a lot of pain on others; I’ve acted in ignorance and waved hate like a flag; I’ve said and did things that hurt a lot of people.
There are artefacts of my past selves online – some of which I’ve locked down and keep around to remind me of my past sins, some of which I’ve scrubbed out, some of which are out of my grasp. If I were ever to become famous, people could find shit on me that would turn your stomach.
But that’s not me anymore. I’ve learned so much in the last ten years. I’ve become more open to seeing things through others’ eyes, and reforged my anger to turn on those who harm others rather than on those who simply want to exist. I’ve learned patience and compassion. I’ve learned how to recognise my privileges and listen to others’ perspectives. I’ve learned to stand up for others, how to hear, how to help, how to correct myself. And I learned some startling shit about myself along the way – with all due irony, some of the things I used to lash out at others for are intrinsic parts of myself.
You wouldn’t know what I am now from what I was then. You wouldn’t know what I was then from what I am now.
It distresses me deeply to think of someone dredging up my dark, awful past and treating me as though that furiously hateful person is still me. It distresses me to see others dredging up the past for anyone who has made efforts to become a better person, out of some sick obsession with proving they’re “problematic.”
Purity culture tells you that once someone says or does something, they can never go back on it. That’s a goddamn lie. While it’s true that some remain unrepentant and never change their ways and continue to harm others, it’s important to allow everyone the chance to learn from their mistakes. Saying something ignorant isn’t murder. Please stop treating it that way. Let people grow.
Still call it out and question it ….
Bruh. No. Listen. Call out what people do now, absolutely. If they haven’t changed, call them out on their record. This post is explicitly not about people who HAVEN’T changed. What this post IS saying is, if someone is making an effort to be a good person, don’t go digging around in their past for evidence that they were once for what they’re now against, or once against what they’re now for, as “proof” of what they “really think,” because people’s opinions and beliefs can change.
The obsession with finding shit in someone’s past and then claiming that a questionable or even sordid past negates all possibility of a good present needs to become extinct. Gold-star activism and purity culture are bullshit and we need to collectively reject the fuck out of them.
If someone has changed for the better, don’t harass them about what they were like before they fuckin’ changed. That’s shitty and it needs to stop.
i jst thank fuck every day I wasn’t allowed on the internet from the ages of 11-16 because if my old journals are anything to go by i was a far right wing brainwashed child
If you speak in an angry way about what has happened to our people and what is happening to our people, what does he call it? Emotionalism. Pick up on that. Here the man has got a rope around his neck and because he screams, you know, the cracker that’s putting the rope around his neck accuses him of being emotional. You’re supposed to have the rope around your neck and holler politely, you know. You’re supposed to watch your diction, not shout and wake other people up— this is how you’re supposed to holler. You’re supposed to be respectable and responsible when you holler against what they’re doing to you. And you’ve got a lot of Afro-Americans who fall for that. They say, “No, you can’t do it like that, you’ve got to be responsible, you’ve got to be respectable.” And you’ll always be a slave as long as you’re trying to be responsible and respectable in the eyesight of your master; you’ll remain a slave. When you’re in the eyesight of your master, you’ve got to let him know you’re irresponsible and you’ll blow his irresponsible head off.
And again you’ve got another trap that he maneuvers you into. If you begin to talk about what he did to you, he’ll say that’s hate, you’re teaching hate. Pick up on that. He won’t say he didn’t do it, because he can’t. But he’ll accuse you of teaching hate just because you begin to spell out what he did to you. Which is an intellectual trap—because he knows we don’t want to be accused of hate.
And the average Black American who has been real brain-washed, he never wants to be accused of being emotional. Watch them, watch the real bourgeois Black Americans. He never wants to show any sign of emotion. He won’t even tap his feet. You can have some of that real soul music, and he’ll sit there, you know, like it doesn’t move him.
And then you go a step farther, they get you again on this violence. They have another trap wherein they make it look criminal if any of us, who has a rope around his neck or one is being put around his neck—if you do anything to stop the man from putting that rope around your neck, that’s violence. And again this bourgeois Negro, who’s trying to be polite and respectable and all, he never wants to be identified with violence. So he lets them do anything to him, and he sits there submitting to it nonviolently, just so he can keep his image of responsibility. He dies with a responsible image, he dies with a polite image, but he dies. The man who is irresponsible and impolite, he keeps his life. That responsible Negro, he’ll die every day, but if the irresponsible one dies he takes some of those with him who were trying to make him die.
This shit is real familiar, isn’t it? So for all the white people who wanna roll up on me and other folk who they have deemed “SJ bloggers” and try and attack out humanity like we have no clue what tactics they’re using…please realize this: Malcom X done seent yo ass before you were even born. And if you don’t think this is basic knowledge to us, think again.
I’ve said it before and I’ll always say it. IF YOU COME AT ME, I WILL TAKE YOU WITH ME. And this shit is so old your fucking grandma was being racist in the same way before your dumb cracker ass was born.
Why do (esp white) men love having fights about politics where they change topics 6x to confuse you and then try and make you look dumb because you can’t jump between the points bc you’re too busy arguing the separate distinct points bc you thought that’s what the fight was about
“The Gish gallop allows a debater to hit their opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the “Gish galloper” takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place,[4] which wastes the opponent’s time and can cast doubt about their debating ability in an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved.[5] …If one is familiar with an opponent who is known to use the Gish gallop, the technique can be countered somewhat by preempting and refuting their commonly used arguments before they have the chance.[7]“
Or sometimes it could help to point out that they’re doing it, though I suspect the kind of person who does this is the kind of person who responds to “Wow, you’re Gish galloping” with “ad hominem!”
“this character did a problematic thing-” its a story helen, commonly including things like conflict and drama
Here are your 4 new best friends:
“Okay.”
“Wow.”
“No.”
CHILLY AWKWARD SILENCE
Them: [Bigoted remark]
You: Wow. [+ maybe one of the SPLC scripts to unpack it]
Them: “It’s manipulative if you say my bigoted remarks are not okay!”
You: “Okay.” + CHILLY AWKWARD SILENCE
Them: “There would be no problem if you just laughed.”
You: “No.” + CHILLY AWKWARD SILENCE
Them: “Your problem is that you have no sense of humor.”
You: “Okay.” + CHILLY AWKWARD SILENCE
Be a broken record. Let them be offended. Let them think you’re being manipulative. Don’t engage in detail or give them reasons. If they won’t stop or escalate, say “Welp, good to see you, time to go!” & get out of there. You don’t owe them continued access to your attention. Leave the conversation and try again another day.
Whatever you do, don’t smooth it over. Let it get super awkward. Be the party pooper at the bigot party. Get a reputation for being uptight and humorless and no fun.
People have a right to their opinions, speech, and votes. You have a right to think those opinions are crap and to think less of people when they spout them. Bigots think that “everyone” thinks as they do and that their views are “simple common sense.” What bigots are looking for when they say bigoted stuff to people who (as far as they know) share their race/class/orientation/disability status/etc. is solidarity and reassurance. Deny them this reassurance and solidarity. Deny them evidence that “everyone” thinks that way. That is your power here, and it’s a pretty big one, given the way your family throws a tantrum whenever you try to use it. You’re already doing the right stuff, now it’s just about holding the line and letting be as awkward as they are making it.
It’s also easier to let them fall into their own garbage with “I don’t get it.” Or “I don’t understand.”
“I don’t know what you mean.” “I don’t get it.” “I don’t understand.” “Why?” “That doesn’t make sense.”
Them: [Bigoted claim.] Right? You: I don’t get it.
Them: [Bigoted Claim] You: …Wow.
You can even embellish:
“Do people really think that?” “I’ve never heard someone say that.” “I’ve never heard that before.” “I didn’t know you felt that way.” “You believe that?” / “Do people really believe that?” “…Huh.” “You really think so?”
So, I did it – went through and searched my blog for the posts I’d unknowingly reblogged from any of the Russian troll accounts on the list Tumbler’s sending round. I think the results are interesting for anyone else who’s gotten the same email and may be wondering:
I came up with around 15 reblogs in total. Most of them fell broadly under the umbrella of “legit things posted to build the account’s credibility”: actual news stories with credible sources, or screenshots of twitter conversations (which might be either discussing facts or opinions) or of TV shows. Most actually had a positive tone (probably because of the correct assumption that people are less likely to fact-check “awesome historical figure of colour!”-type posts than “awful thing happened yesterday here!” posts), and covered topics like Black history, modern Black leaders, Muslim positivity, and body positivity. One was a post explaining the procedure for writing in Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, which I and most of the other people in the chain reblogged expressly to explain what a bad idea it was.
Even some of the positive posts, though, take on a bit of a sinister edge when you know where they’re coming from. “Neglected historical figures” posts, like any “why is no one talking about X” posts, can bolster the sense that news sources outside your online bubble are ignoring or obscuring the truth about the world. A gifset (like one I reblogged) of Jon Stewart giving a blistering takedown on The Late Show, with a caption about how much the poster misses Stewart and how much we need someone like him, but there’s no one on The Daily Show now who’s his equal, uses a genuinely great moment of political satire to denigrate the amazing work currently being done in satire, and chip away at the credibility of voices like Trevor Noah’s and all the other comedians and commentators who are calling politicians to account now.
I want to talk about this post in particular, because I think it’s really telling. It shows just how insidious propaganda can be:
The Fact Check: Like many others, the post presents facts that are broadly correct – India TV and several other sources did say that Tom Holland “wants to play an Indian Spiderman”. However, if you read the coverage, the same articles also quote Holland saying that an Indian actor should take the role of Spiderman if an Indian version of the film is made. It seems more likely that it was a language issue or other mistake than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the actor.
The Hook: The post creates a sense of urgency by suggesting that misinformation is already being circulated, and that this misinformation is hurting innocent people. I certainly hit reblog because I didn’t want a misleading story to make people think badly of Tom Holland. If you buy that the lie is already out there, then, given how fast information circulates, there’s a sense of time pressure around sharing the “truth” that (ironically) helps real misinformation spread.
The Framing: The whole post is (again, kind of ironically) framed as a fact check, contrasting the headline with dialogue from the actual interview. But the fact check is deliberately incomplete. It demonstrates that what Holland said was different from the headline, but skirts the question of what the original article really claimed he said.
The Spin: And this is the really insidious bit. Why bother painting an Indian news outlet like it’s trying to smear a random actor when it’s not? Look at the caption: I am fed up with the media nowadays
That’s the point – that seed of doubt about the media. Not entertainment media, all media. Don’t trust mainstream journalism. Don’t trust the sources of information that have access, resources, and influence.
Sound familiar? The lying mainstream media? Fake news?
So if you’re wondering how infiltration works and what it tries to accomplish – well, here you go.
^^^THAT
Learn to recognize the pattern. Inciting strife or outrage should be suspicious. Anything that is not constructive. “Fed up” – and then what?
Healthy movements want to BUILD: take care of people, comfort, feed, develop.
I’ve been trying to learn about that stuff, and then warn friends, for the last couple of years. The pattern has been very similar in 2013 and up with Russian meddling in Ukraine. Some of the same people are involved. I freaked out so much when I started to see that sick slag happening in the US.
Currently, they are meddling in the gun issue to incite strife.
All of this. Kudos to DC for actually taking the time to do this. It shows how easy it is for any one of us to assist in spreading misinformation online.
(Also, an interesting little book published like almost 100 years ago that details how a lot of this bullshit works is Bernays’ Propaganda. I read it after the election and was surprised/unsurprised at how relevant it was today).
i'll apple your turnover 