Twitter "Likes", labelling people, and BLM
This article, at over 3500 words, is probably too long ... but I had a lot to say on the subject and I feel better having written it. Maybe in lockdown some people will sit down with a cup of tea and scan through it. If you want to do it faster use the Chome spreed plugin since I never got spritz integrated to this blog.
What does twitter's "like" ♡♥ mean to you? In 2015 twitter changed the star (favorite) operation to the heart (like). Personally I use the heart as a bookmark operation - it doesn't mean I agree with the tweet, I don't use it as an "I've seen this" acknowledgement, or any of the other reasons mentioned in this 2015 article about the change. In, fact I'm more likely to use it to represent things that have made me think - possibly things I actively disagree with, which makes judging people based on their twitter likes to be a dangerous ans misleading thing to do. The only real problem I have with the way I use likes as bookmarks is that likes are extremely hard to search in a good way. Even twitter's advanced search doesn't let you search your "likes".
In the same vein I really dislike the idea of confirmation bias and I will frequently follow people whose views are not in alignment with mine. People often say that "retweets are not endorsements" but for me retweets usually are, unless I've retweeted with a comment making it clear that it isn't. My likes aren't endorsements either for the reasons in the first paragraph (perhaps it's time I should start using bookmarks as well as likes), and the list of people I follow does not in any way indicate my support for them or that I agree with their views - yet the media, and others, will frequently judge you on those basis. For me the great thing about twitter is not the ability to interact with people you know, but to listen to and engage with others so you hear opinions and views from others to allow you to learn and understand from them and that to me is something unique to twitter. #Brexit in the UK was a great example - I was against it but I started following people who were very much in favour of it so I could, at the very least understand their views and opinions better. It also means I would generally never block someone on twitter. Also if most people choose to "just block" people with views they disagree with then it not only prevents you seeing alternate views in your timeline, the "blocked" person will tend towards only having contacts which back up their views and are less likely to be challenged on them. I've seen those effects on facebook in particular where interactions on the same topic go quite differently depending on who's post they are on.
I don't really know how pervasive it is for people to do what I do on twitter and actively "follow" and "like" things on the platform who they strongly disagree with. I suspect it's low (unless you're doing it to actively troll people). Which brings me to my next point - abuse and name calling on twitter. I wonder how people with a high profile deal with their twitter notifications since the usefulness of the platform is proportional to the amount of useful interactions that you get. Want to think about your potential biases a bit more? Check out 5½ minute TED talk on Rethinking thinking: The ladder of inference and how your brain filters things - being aware of it can help spot unconscious biases you may have in the future and try to be more open to alternative ideas.
Black Lives Matter and dealing with racists (and others who you might try to label)
I initially drafted this post in the middle of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and a few weeks after the death of George Floyd in the US and am posting it in the wake of Jacob Blake being shot in the back. It may be long overdue but #blackLivesMatter (henceforth BLM has become "a big thing" and rightly so. Lots of accusations of racism are being seen in the media just now including on twitter towards many people - shows like Little Britain and Bo Selecta have been removed from several UK catch-up services, and even the "Germans" episode of Fawlty Towers was revoked. But let's take a step back in light of what I've said in the first part of this blog. The best thing about twitter is the ability to interact with and learn from people with opposing views. Throwing "YOU'RE A RACIST" messages back at people on social media rarely feels constructive. Either they're racist and proud of it (in which case you're just stroking their ego) or they're unaware that what they're saying is viewed that way in which case shouting at them is likely to leave them confused. Either way, it's not a great reaction (and is counter to point #4 on my antisocial networking post)
To my mind the way to truly make a difference when you see such incidents is to see what you can do to educate people. Most decent people want to learn and understand (but maybe won't explicitly take the time to do it themselves). Trolls aside, if you can interact with people in a meaningful way then you have the chance to really make a difference to people's attitudes. It's all very well using a highly publicised hashtag like #blackLivesMatter but if you don't "walk the walk" along with it then you are only paying lip service to the problem, and the people with opposing views probably won't understand purely from the use of such a hashtag what the real underlying issues are and it can cause animosity and the sorts of reactions I'm going to mention in the next section on what people get wrong.
Some introductory references:
- The Jane Elliot blue-eyes experiment - what if one colour of eyes were better than another? (5 minute read)
- Race, Nationality, and Ethnicity explained as jelly beans - do you know the difference between the three (3 minute video)
- Privilege in a $100 race - do you start ahead or behind in the race of life? (4 minute video)
- 5 tips for being an ally and how to use your own privilege to educate others (3½ minute video)
Glossing over the social-distancing issues related to the BLM protests one of the most iconic moments of the UK campaigning was the removal of slave trader Edward Colston's statue in Bristol and it's dumping into the river (It has now been retrieved and will likely end up in a museum). Much of Bristol's wealth came from Colston and the actions have divided opinion. Similarly People outside America cannot pretend this a US-only issue. While the police murders are not happening in the UK, the racism and historic slavery certainly isn't and while it was abolished in 1803 the UK has a history of it too, with a statue of Winston Churchill also being under threat. We shouldn't hide our past (although slavery overall has sadly not yet been eradicated in the UK)
What do people get wrong? Some tips for responding to perceived racists/racism
As an introduction to this section I'll start by saying that if you see any of the examples I'm going to call out don't start by calling them racist. As mentioned earlier you'll either stroke their ego because they know and are proud of it or you'll make them afraid to air their views because of the backlash. It concerns me that many people simply don't understand what counts as racist and what doesn't and just calling them racists (especially if that's all you say!) is not going to lead to a productive dialog. Take a look at this thread about whether it's acceptable to describe someone as "black" and see the responses. When I asked others about that twitter thread the responses from white people have generally been "Yes I have those concerns" and blacks appear to have the view "I had no idea people felt like that". I spoke to someone who has experienced being called out for being racist because they described someone as black. How many people have experienced where you want to point someone black out in a group but don't know which term to use? I will freely admit that in the past "coloured" seemed to me to be a politically correct way to refer to non-whites but that is no longer seen as acceptable in many countries (even though it's the C the the African-American civitl rights group NAACP - that article also covers the now widely used BAME terminology well too for those not too familiar with it). It's understandable that people can show reservations about using different terms, or may inadvertently use one now considered offensive. It's very easy to call out someone for being racist when they just don't understand something, or views have changed over time, and are struggling to understand which terms are acceptable to avoid being branded a racist. Similarly saying "Do you not understand?" on it's own is equally unhelpful. If you're going to react to someone please try to explain the concern in a considerate manner.
All lives matter: The cartoon above (link) is one of the best explanations of the issue with this phrase (hereis another example), and it's one of the most common anti-BLM sentiments that I hear. Often when people talk naively about the BLM movement their first response is "of course they do - all lives matter", or try to claim that the campaign is about putting black lives on a higher value plane than non-blacks, and so we end up with people putting banners in the sky saying "White Lives Matter". Some people, like the person who flew that banner, aren't likely to listen (based on listening to his interview) but most people are decent, reasonable, and if they have one of these feelings it is, again, important to educate them on why. That means not calling them a racist, not block them on twitter, not censoring or removing their views or make an example of them or try and get people to pile abuse on them. It's very easy when you follow topics to have knowledge about them to assume "Well of course everyone else must know what I do" but we have to remember that it's not always the case. We all look at different things and get our inputs and knowledge from different sources. While you get the occasional black person saying they don't need to be told BLM the campaign as it stands is generally accepted as a positive thing in the world.
Efil4Zaggin: I frequently listen to the new music releases each week, and a reasonable amount of the rap ones include "the N word" (I struggled to come up with the bold bit at the start of this paragraph but the NWA 1991 album title seemed a reasonable choice as an opener) and I've always though that the the common usage of "The N word" (now generally considered extremely offensive) was also fuelling racism issues by making it seem acceptable.In fact it wasn't until a discussion this week when someone pointed out that it depends on the ending - if the word ends -er then it's the offensive version whoever uses it, but an ending of -a (or -az as per the album title) is an accepted term for African Americans (mostly) to use themselves colloquially (even though in some music it doesn't feel friendly - "Nothing's worse than being a rich n*a's enemy" from Not3s "Highest" was an example I'd come across while drafting this) but is considered offensive when used by people outside the group so even if you hear it in music that really does not translate to any feeling that it's ok for you to use it. It's pervasive use in music still sits a little uncomfortably with me though.
Meritocracies Organisations will frequently say they have a fair, inclusive, nondiscriminatory system by saying "We are a meritocracy - everyone gets where they are based on their ability" and such a goal is certainly admirable. But it has to be done with care and I've heard some valid counter-arguments to this. Who makes the decisions on who rises to the top? What criteria are they using? Are you sure that they are not subject to any unconscious bias that might mean that while, on paper, you're judging solely on some definition of "merit", you're actually backup up people who agree with you and are "like" you. This runs the risk of creating an "old boy's club" at the top where new ideas and innovation and ideas from people from other backgrounds do not come to the fore.
Computing terminology: In the wake of this there has been a lot of discussion to change terminology in the technology industry. master/slave has been fairly commonplace, but "server/agent" works in many cases, and "controller/worker" in others. Primary/secondary in others. I've also seen types of testing (whitebox/blackbox) been raised as a concern (it could be open-box/closedbox, or even "clear-box/opaque-box") Many people have started renaming their default branches in github to be something other than "master" and github is considering changing its defaults (although people who've done it already find that github pages won't accept anything other than master) but that is hardly an insurmountable problem for github. Is changing somethimg like that a bit too much? The point that John Legend made above is likely true of "masters degree" or "master copy" of an album. When I mentioned John's tweet to a non-techie their response was to feel the association was more readily there with "master/mistress of the house" or a junior form of "mister". Saying that, if someone wants to rename their branches to "main" or "default" then I'm ok with that too but I think I've only seen one post from someone claiming it's offensive to them - maybe I'm not following a diverse enough set of people after all. And frankly if it helps get more people feel included then let's do it. Just don't let your activism end there. Although this blog covers the reasons quite comprehensively too.
Having people be careful around some of these words and phrasing for fear of retribution by being branded racist actually worries me. It means that the much needed education and discussion around the topic often cannot happen. It means that people can't necessarily express what they want to. It means that people feel they don't have a medium to convey views against the way /any/ anti-racist campaigns are run however ill-advised they are (Have a look at what the "BLM UK" branded campaign is involved in), because that could result in you being perceived as racist. If you do not help to educate people who "get it wrong" and rather block them, throw insults at them, or even tell others that even engaging with them might be seen as racist, you're not helping to solve the problem, and by not helping, you can be actively making it worse by not breaking down barriers. If we want to improve the situation in society we need to stop throwing "the r word" at people and try and educate the majority of decent people who have just made a mistake or simply don't understand. It's ok to ask, it's ok to get things wrong as long as you're prepared to listen.
Still unsure about what you can say - check out this article which was one of the better ones I found while putting this post together: https://www.rifemagazine.co.uk/2015/01/cant-say-coloured-questions-race-answered/ but be aware that asking your black friend to explain everything to you is possibly not the best approach to educating yourselves:
If you want another example of how black people feel compelled to try to change themselves to be part of society here was an interview with Jeffrey Boakye who wrote the book Black, Listed.
Other person: "Does it go back to what you're saying though, about speaking 'fluent white guy'? Are you trying to be as nonthreatening as possible so you're not seen as 'the difficult black guy'?"
JB: "Yeah, because I know that the next step after being identified as aggressive, difficult ..."
Other person: "Arrested?"
JB: "Yeah I might be annihilated - we've seen it happen. Remember Christian Cooper - that man walking his dog in a park. I'm Christian Cooper - I know full well that racism can just be activated within individuals, within an institution and I'm hyper aware of that at all times. It took me years to become challenging"
It goes back to what I said near the start of this article - if you see problems don't automatically try and stick those people in a box. Try not to ostracise or "block" them and anyone who tries to interact with them as that is not the way to help to resolve the problem. Today's "Cancel culture" and trying to pile on someone with a lynch mob has the potential to make people even more likely to avoid subjects this driving the problems back underground which isn't something we should go back to. Try to see if there's a reasonable explanation for their actions and if you still aren't willing to move on your own position try and let them see your side without being abusive - attack/challenge the ideas, not the person making them. The "rules" - as we've discussed for racism in particular - aren't always blinding obvious to everyone (and perceptions of terminology change over time). We are human and all learn from our mistakes, from challenging what we know, so interacting with the people we don't have the same opinions as and gaining common understanding is the way to make the world a more inclusive place. Don't be afraid to let yourself be swayed by what you see on social media - it's a sign of enlightenment, not weakness to admit you might have got something wrong. If you think I've got something wrong in this article let me know. We may disagree but let's have the conversation. Thanks for reading.
What does twitter's "like" ♡♥ mean to you? In 2015 twitter changed the star (favorite) operation to the heart (like). Personally I use the heart as a bookmark operation - it doesn't mean I agree with the tweet, I don't use it as an "I've seen this" acknowledgement, or any of the other reasons mentioned in this 2015 article about the change. In, fact I'm more likely to use it to represent things that have made me think - possibly things I actively disagree with, which makes judging people based on their twitter likes to be a dangerous ans misleading thing to do. The only real problem I have with the way I use likes as bookmarks is that likes are extremely hard to search in a good way. Even twitter's advanced search doesn't let you search your "likes".
In the same vein I really dislike the idea of confirmation bias and I will frequently follow people whose views are not in alignment with mine. People often say that "retweets are not endorsements" but for me retweets usually are, unless I've retweeted with a comment making it clear that it isn't. My likes aren't endorsements either for the reasons in the first paragraph (perhaps it's time I should start using bookmarks as well as likes), and the list of people I follow does not in any way indicate my support for them or that I agree with their views - yet the media, and others, will frequently judge you on those basis. For me the great thing about twitter is not the ability to interact with people you know, but to listen to and engage with others so you hear opinions and views from others to allow you to learn and understand from them and that to me is something unique to twitter. #Brexit in the UK was a great example - I was against it but I started following people who were very much in favour of it so I could, at the very least understand their views and opinions better. It also means I would generally never block someone on twitter. Also if most people choose to "just block" people with views they disagree with then it not only prevents you seeing alternate views in your timeline, the "blocked" person will tend towards only having contacts which back up their views and are less likely to be challenged on them. I've seen those effects on facebook in particular where interactions on the same topic go quite differently depending on who's post they are on.
I don't really know how pervasive it is for people to do what I do on twitter and actively "follow" and "like" things on the platform who they strongly disagree with. I suspect it's low (unless you're doing it to actively troll people). Which brings me to my next point - abuse and name calling on twitter. I wonder how people with a high profile deal with their twitter notifications since the usefulness of the platform is proportional to the amount of useful interactions that you get. Want to think about your potential biases a bit more? Check out 5½ minute TED talk on Rethinking thinking: The ladder of inference and how your brain filters things - being aware of it can help spot unconscious biases you may have in the future and try to be more open to alternative ideas.
Black Lives Matter and dealing with racists (and others who you might try to label)
I initially drafted this post in the middle of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and a few weeks after the death of George Floyd in the US and am posting it in the wake of Jacob Blake being shot in the back. It may be long overdue but #blackLivesMatter (henceforth BLM has become "a big thing" and rightly so. Lots of accusations of racism are being seen in the media just now including on twitter towards many people - shows like Little Britain and Bo Selecta have been removed from several UK catch-up services, and even the "Germans" episode of Fawlty Towers was revoked. But let's take a step back in light of what I've said in the first part of this blog. The best thing about twitter is the ability to interact with and learn from people with opposing views. Throwing "YOU'RE A RACIST" messages back at people on social media rarely feels constructive. Either they're racist and proud of it (in which case you're just stroking their ego) or they're unaware that what they're saying is viewed that way in which case shouting at them is likely to leave them confused. Either way, it's not a great reaction (and is counter to point #4 on my antisocial networking post)
To my mind the way to truly make a difference when you see such incidents is to see what you can do to educate people. Most decent people want to learn and understand (but maybe won't explicitly take the time to do it themselves). Trolls aside, if you can interact with people in a meaningful way then you have the chance to really make a difference to people's attitudes. It's all very well using a highly publicised hashtag like #blackLivesMatter but if you don't "walk the walk" along with it then you are only paying lip service to the problem, and the people with opposing views probably won't understand purely from the use of such a hashtag what the real underlying issues are and it can cause animosity and the sorts of reactions I'm going to mention in the next section on what people get wrong.
Some introductory references:
- The Jane Elliot blue-eyes experiment - what if one colour of eyes were better than another? (5 minute read)
- Race, Nationality, and Ethnicity explained as jelly beans - do you know the difference between the three (3 minute video)
- Privilege in a $100 race - do you start ahead or behind in the race of life? (4 minute video)
- 5 tips for being an ally and how to use your own privilege to educate others (3½ minute video)
What do people get wrong? Some tips for responding to perceived racists/racism
As an introduction to this section I'll start by saying that if you see any of the examples I'm going to call out don't start by calling them racist. As mentioned earlier you'll either stroke their ego because they know and are proud of it or you'll make them afraid to air their views because of the backlash. It concerns me that many people simply don't understand what counts as racist and what doesn't and just calling them racists (especially if that's all you say!) is not going to lead to a productive dialog. Take a look at this thread about whether it's acceptable to describe someone as "black" and see the responses. When I asked others about that twitter thread the responses from white people have generally been "Yes I have those concerns" and blacks appear to have the view "I had no idea people felt like that". I spoke to someone who has experienced being called out for being racist because they described someone as black. How many people have experienced where you want to point someone black out in a group but don't know which term to use? I will freely admit that in the past "coloured" seemed to me to be a politically correct way to refer to non-whites but that is no longer seen as acceptable in many countries (even though it's the C the the African-American civitl rights group NAACP - that article also covers the now widely used BAME terminology well too for those not too familiar with it). It's understandable that people can show reservations about using different terms, or may inadvertently use one now considered offensive. It's very easy to call out someone for being racist when they just don't understand something, or views have changed over time, and are struggling to understand which terms are acceptable to avoid being branded a racist. Similarly saying "Do you not understand?" on it's own is equally unhelpful. If you're going to react to someone please try to explain the concern in a considerate manner.
The term "coloured", is an outdated, offensive and revealing choice of words.
— Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) March 7, 2019
I don't see colour On the face of it, this response seems entirely reasonable. It is intended to convey that someone is treating everyone equally and not judging them or their decisions in any way based on their race - they will be treating everyone as equals. The reason this phrase is being included here is because to ignore colour. Particularly with the significant BLM movement, it's more important than ever to acknowledge the issues faced by black people specifically. If you pretend not to see one of the most visible parts of a person (it's there even if you use the colour-blind line) then how will you ever spot when you, even unconsciously, make a judgement based on it. It's easy to say "I wouldn't do that" but it can be harder to make sure you really aren't being influenced by it, and it requires discipline. You may be doing your best not to conclude things based on someone's skin colour, but you may still be forming judgements and opinions that are influenced by it, and not even having that thought in your head means you may not spot when there might be an issue which could easily result in someone attempting to deny the reality of historic systemic racism in the world. As per some of the things I posted earlier, don't shy away from that aspect of a person - you are allowed to call them black if that's what they are, just don't form any biases based on it. Being "Color Blind" doesn't make you not racist. In fact, it can mean the opposite.
All lives matter: The cartoon above (link) is one of the best explanations of the issue with this phrase (hereis another example), and it's one of the most common anti-BLM sentiments that I hear. Often when people talk naively about the BLM movement their first response is "of course they do - all lives matter", or try to claim that the campaign is about putting black lives on a higher value plane than non-blacks, and so we end up with people putting banners in the sky saying "White Lives Matter". Some people, like the person who flew that banner, aren't likely to listen (based on listening to his interview) but most people are decent, reasonable, and if they have one of these feelings it is, again, important to educate them on why. That means not calling them a racist, not block them on twitter, not censoring or removing their views or make an example of them or try and get people to pile abuse on them. It's very easy when you follow topics to have knowledge about them to assume "Well of course everyone else must know what I do" but we have to remember that it's not always the case. We all look at different things and get our inputs and knowledge from different sources. While you get the occasional black person saying they don't need to be told BLM the campaign as it stands is generally accepted as a positive thing in the world.
I do not need a person who happens to be white, to tell me that my life matters. If anything, it's incredibly condescending. I know my life matters because I do not define my self-worth by the validation of white people.
— Inaya Folarin Iman (@InayaFolarin) June 7, 2020
Efil4Zaggin: I frequently listen to the new music releases each week, and a reasonable amount of the rap ones include "the N word" (I struggled to come up with the bold bit at the start of this paragraph but the NWA 1991 album title seemed a reasonable choice as an opener) and I've always though that the the common usage of "The N word" (now generally considered extremely offensive) was also fuelling racism issues by making it seem acceptable.In fact it wasn't until a discussion this week when someone pointed out that it depends on the ending - if the word ends -er then it's the offensive version whoever uses it, but an ending of -a (or -az as per the album title) is an accepted term for African Americans (mostly) to use themselves colloquially (even though in some music it doesn't feel friendly - "Nothing's worse than being a rich n*a's enemy" from Not3s "Highest" was an example I'd come across while drafting this) but is considered offensive when used by people outside the group so even if you hear it in music that really does not translate to any feeling that it's ok for you to use it. It's pervasive use in music still sits a little uncomfortably with me though.
Meritocracies Organisations will frequently say they have a fair, inclusive, nondiscriminatory system by saying "We are a meritocracy - everyone gets where they are based on their ability" and such a goal is certainly admirable. But it has to be done with care and I've heard some valid counter-arguments to this. Who makes the decisions on who rises to the top? What criteria are they using? Are you sure that they are not subject to any unconscious bias that might mean that while, on paper, you're judging solely on some definition of "merit", you're actually backup up people who agree with you and are "like" you. This runs the risk of creating an "old boy's club" at the top where new ideas and innovation and ideas from people from other backgrounds do not come to the fore.
Real problem: realtors don't show black people all the properties they qualify for. Fake problem: calling the master bedroom the master bedroom. Fix the real problem, realtors. https://t.co/Qq7yQ8Gb3g
— John Legend (@johnlegend) June 27, 2020
Computing terminology: In the wake of this there has been a lot of discussion to change terminology in the technology industry. master/slave has been fairly commonplace, but "server/agent" works in many cases, and "controller/worker" in others. Primary/secondary in others. I've also seen types of testing (whitebox/blackbox) been raised as a concern (it could be open-box/closedbox, or even "clear-box/opaque-box") Many people have started renaming their default branches in github to be something other than "master" and github is considering changing its defaults (although people who've done it already find that github pages won't accept anything other than master) but that is hardly an insurmountable problem for github. Is changing somethimg like that a bit too much? The point that John Legend made above is likely true of "masters degree" or "master copy" of an album. When I mentioned John's tweet to a non-techie their response was to feel the association was more readily there with "master/mistress of the house" or a junior form of "mister". Saying that, if someone wants to rename their branches to "main" or "default" then I'm ok with that too but I think I've only seen one post from someone claiming it's offensive to them - maybe I'm not following a diverse enough set of people after all. And frankly if it helps get more people feel included then let's do it. Just don't let your activism end there. Although this blog covers the reasons quite comprehensively too.
It's a great idea and we are already working on this! cc @billygriffin22
— Nat Friedman (@natfriedman) June 12, 2020
I have shifted all of my repositories on @github from using 'master' to 'main' as the head branch. I hope that this change will make all of my projects more welcoming to everyone. #BlackLivesMatter
— ThatRobotDev (@JamesKerrane) June 26, 2020
(1/5)
Having people be careful around some of these words and phrasing for fear of retribution by being branded racist actually worries me. It means that the much needed education and discussion around the topic often cannot happen. It means that people can't necessarily express what they want to. It means that people feel they don't have a medium to convey views against the way /any/ anti-racist campaigns are run however ill-advised they are (Have a look at what the "BLM UK" branded campaign is involved in), because that could result in you being perceived as racist. If you do not help to educate people who "get it wrong" and rather block them, throw insults at them, or even tell others that even engaging with them might be seen as racist, you're not helping to solve the problem, and by not helping, you can be actively making it worse by not breaking down barriers. If we want to improve the situation in society we need to stop throwing "the r word" at people and try and educate the majority of decent people who have just made a mistake or simply don't understand. It's ok to ask, it's ok to get things wrong as long as you're prepared to listen.
Still unsure about what you can say - check out this article which was one of the better ones I found while putting this post together: https://www.rifemagazine.co.uk/2015/01/cant-say-coloured-questions-race-answered/ but be aware that asking your black friend to explain everything to you is possibly not the best approach to educating yourselves:
To even say, ‘This is not my life, so I’m unfamiliar with it, can you teach me, please?’ comes with so much privilege that the question, at times, can add to our hurt because we are yet again faced with how different our lives truly are.
If you want another example of how black people feel compelled to try to change themselves to be part of society here was an interview with Jeffrey Boakye who wrote the book Black, Listed.
Other person: "Does it go back to what you're saying though, about speaking 'fluent white guy'? Are you trying to be as nonthreatening as possible so you're not seen as 'the difficult black guy'?"
JB: "Yeah, because I know that the next step after being identified as aggressive, difficult ..."
Other person: "Arrested?"
JB: "Yeah I might be annihilated - we've seen it happen. Remember Christian Cooper - that man walking his dog in a park. I'm Christian Cooper - I know full well that racism can just be activated within individuals, within an institution and I'm hyper aware of that at all times. It took me years to become challenging"
Other examples of social media abuse and disinformation
In terms of how people react to things, the sort of of issues I've described above are of course not exclusive to racism but with recent events it has been the one that's easier to focus on, but other forms of perceived prejudice throw up similar concerns. If you look at the reaction to JK Rowling's recent comments on trans people (and a subsequent MP apology for comments that have been made which she accepted although that has not stopped stars she's helped such as Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson denouncing her comments - JK's post about the reaction is here). There have been attempts to use "womxn" as a more inclusive version of women (including by TED London) and encouraing people to publish they're chosen pronoun (would you default to "they/them" if you didn't know? Would you object to it as a default in the absence of an explicit preference?) and how can you find terminology that someone won't take objection to? it's hard, and we just have to accept we probably can't get it wrong every time.Why we're using 'womxn'
— TEDxLondon (@tedxlondon) September 5, 2020
No, that's not a typo: 'womxn' is a spelling of 'women' that's more inclusive and progressive. The term sheds light on the prejudice, discrimination, and institutional barriers womxn have faced, and explicitly includes non-cisgender women.
There were similar reactions to UK opposition leader Keir Starmer firing Rebecca Long-Bailey for retweeting this article from actress Maxine Peake mostly about Jeremy Corbyn which included an accusation about American police using tactics learned from Israel secret services at a time when Keir's Labour party had been struggling with accusations of antisemitism before he took over its leadership. Are these overreactions? Maybe, but it opens the debate, gets people talking about it, but unfortunately can also lead to abuse as much as constructive discussion. Similar things happen with discussions on conspiracy theories (5G? Anti-vaccination groups?) How often do you see memes or "cut & paste this" instead of sharing on things in you facebook feed. Not sharing an original article from it's referenced source means you fragment the conversation, encourages those people who like your views to comment/like and lets any one person trying to make a counter-point be drowned out. You can counter many of these with links to reputable fact checking web sites such as FullFact or Snopes.
It goes back to what I said near the start of this article - if you see problems don't automatically try and stick those people in a box. Try not to ostracise or "block" them and anyone who tries to interact with them as that is not the way to help to resolve the problem. Today's "Cancel culture" and trying to pile on someone with a lynch mob has the potential to make people even more likely to avoid subjects this driving the problems back underground which isn't something we should go back to. Try to see if there's a reasonable explanation for their actions and if you still aren't willing to move on your own position try and let them see your side without being abusive - attack/challenge the ideas, not the person making them. The "rules" - as we've discussed for racism in particular - aren't always blinding obvious to everyone (and perceptions of terminology change over time). We are human and all learn from our mistakes, from challenging what we know, so interacting with the people we don't have the same opinions as and gaining common understanding is the way to make the world a more inclusive place. Don't be afraid to let yourself be swayed by what you see on social media - it's a sign of enlightenment, not weakness to admit you might have got something wrong. If you think I've got something wrong in this article let me know. We may disagree but let's have the conversation. Thanks for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment