Again and again, the idea that someone feels pressure to not say what's on their mind is taken as obviously bad, with no contemplation of the relative value of the view they wish to express, or what the nature of the pressure is, or what consequence they fear.https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1289333770370203650 …
-
-
Right now the president is a white supremacist fomenting every kind of prejudice, leading a party whose principles regarding the value of human life has led to 150,000 deaths in a pandemic. People should be ashamed to support this. It's a sign of social health if they do.
Show this thread -
That president has subjected critics to targeted harassment by his followers, including the federal government with all its power, and supremacist militias known to law enforcement as the US's largest terror threat. The criticism is true and just, yet critics are rightly afraid.
Show this thread -
The social or even financial pressure to not support such a president is not of the same kind as political pressure to not criticize that president. To treat both as equal is to harm the one that is health, and bring health to the one that is harm. It's a laundering of abuse.
Show this thread -
People used to say a slur that started with the letter "T" all the time. It was everywhere. It was in TV shows, constantly. I used it. Didn't think twice. It was just in the culture. It was a punchline. In my ignorance, wasn't afraid to say it. That wasn't a better situation.
Show this thread -
What happened was, people targeted by that word were brave enough to face genuine threat of harm—a significant consequence—to speak up. And those with ears to hear heard, realized that that word referred to real people, and they should stop, and then they did. Which is better.
Show this thread -
And there were others who didn't want to hear, and greatly resented that everyone else had stopped using it in ignorance, because the common use covered their prejudicial intent, which now lay exposed, and when they used it, people understood that intent. Which is better.
Show this thread -
And yes, there was resentment among bigots that there was now consequence for using a slur that had once been in common currency. The slur became less prevalent, in part because the ignorant learned, in part because the bigoted feared being seen as bigoted. Which is better.
Show this thread -
And, as a consequence of all of this, people targeted by that word became seen more and more as real people, which meant that the consequence *they had always faced* for simple announcing their humanity—which, again, was abuse and violent harm—was lessened. Which is better.
Show this thread -
And this sequence has not just played out for people targeted by a slur starting with "T" but with many other words and many other ideas. Less ignorance and dehumanization. More social consequence for bigotry. Less violent consequence for those targeted by it. WHICH IS BETTER
Show this thread -
I suppose it could be said that since, oh let's say the 50s, more people who feel uncomfortable saying what they think than they used to. There are certainly more people concerned about being abducted by the government—which is very bad. Conflating the two is abuse laundering.
Show this thread -
This is all fairly obvious if you think about power and consequence. Which is why these articles never encourage you to think about power and consequence. That's my thought today on all this "cancel culture" shit.
Show this thread -
since people seem to be unaware of the slur I'm referring to, it rhymes with "granny" and it was a staple of sitcom hilarity until I'd guess less than 10 years ago.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.