Social Justice

[Gaizokubanou]

The State maintains a threat of violence in order to enforce laws. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I would consider it violent to put someone in a cage against their will or threaten to do so.

 

Right, but I don't believe that social order and the authority of many states are maintained purely through this threat.  And it shouldn't play a big role anyways outside of some rare police state cases or in times of political strife and uncertainty.

 

For example, let's just take myself as an example.  Every decision I take that leads me down to living out a relatively docile subject life for my state isn't based on ruthless calculation of "can I get away with XYZ from state's retaliation"... almost all of the considerations are so far removed from "will the SWAT come and punish me with force if I do XYZ" because I'm so habituated into defaulting my decision making within a scope that is far removed from there.

 

Things may trace back to this threat of force, but that's not the actual motivation for order and authority is what I'm suggesting.

 

And yeah, property rights are super important so it's probably a good place for further analysis.

[Bjorn]

The racism of Boyhood. 

[syntheticgerbil]

I hate Linklater's movies and I think he's one of the biggest fucking hacks out there, so I have not seen Boyhood and can't comment on the whiteness, however isn't most or part of the movie supposed to take place in Houston?

 

If that is true, this movie has completely failed, because almost every school in Houston has a large amount of people of color, moreso than ever before. And no, no one was a migrant worker.

[Apple Cider]

Yeah, that's basically what the blog post talks about - how there's a huge, vibrant Latin@ population in Houston and it's not just the stray migrant worker, but also that the white savior narrative fits conveniently in this all-white cast movie. 

[syntheticgerbil]

Hearing that I can see how he's pushing the Austin status quo as a director who is so beloved here and generally only ever casts white people, but I have lived in Houston almost all of my life and as a dull white guy, yeah there has been the shiny white neighborhoods, but public schools are almost always districted in a way where some significant portion of a public school consists of people of color, much to the chagrin of certain superintendents. The closer you get to the 610 loop, the more varied it's gonna be. Also the lack of zoning laws creates some weird integration sometimes. Not sure what part of Houston Mr. Boyhood lived in though as said, I'm not going to see the movie.

[twmac]

Unlike Synthetic, I love Linklater's stuff. That article did give me a huge pause for thought as I remember cringing at the restaurant scene (Patricia Arquette almost pulled it off) but hadn't noticed how bad the lack of representation was.

 

I think that article also speaks volumes as I think it is just assumed that Texas is just full of red neck white people (if you are not actually from the area). I can certainly vouch for my Canadian partner, who tried to pull that as justification for the film's whiteness, and myself prior to reading that article.

 

Not meant as invalidating that guys article but I would be interested to see if Linklater has any kind of justification for this or whether it is simply a case of him being oblivious to what he is doing.

[syntheticgerbil]

I think that article also speaks volumes as I think it is just assumed that Texas is just full of red neck white people (if you are not actually from the area). I can certainly vouch for my Canadian partner, who tried to pull that as justification for the film's whiteness, and myself prior to reading that article.

I think that's how most people who have never lived here perceive it, but besides Austin it probably is a bunch of hateful rednecks in places that aren't San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, Galveston, Laredo, and almost every town or city near the border. I don't know I don't really stop inbetween cities unless I'm camping. They filmed Hope Floats in Smithville and that was full of shiny and white country shtick, and I don't doubt that is probably exactly how that town was at that date (if not still the same). Their sign advertises the movie!

 

However it's not like the angry South will rise again rednecks aren't pervasive in every city as well, but I think that probably comes with most southern states. But also Austin is majority white in the non aggressive liberal sort of way and seems to have always been like that.

 

Also, I suppose one could leverage the same criticism at Reality Bytes, which I think was a bunch of white college kids wearing plaid. I'm pretty sure there were no people of color and most of it took place within the 610 loop. I don't remember that movie being good at all, even after noting that terrible actor Ethan Hawke is in it. Mr. Hawke wooden acting could also be a big part of why I can't stand Linklater films.

 

Houston is kind of a bizarre place of diversity under the guise of oil barons running the town. I was kind of weirded out that in 2012 it became the most diverse city in the country http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/houston-most-diverse_n_1321089.html. I think I have a bad case of missing Houston and my friends there so I'm gonna have all this useless pride, I think in part because everyone in Austin seems to hate Houston (or Dallas).

[Gaizokubanou]

I've been to Texas few times (3 trips for friends' wedding), and the diversity there is bit mixed from my limited visits.

 

Like, you go to cities or bit of high density (relatively speaking to rest of the state) population centers and you can find lot of mexicans or other non-whites.

 

But where my friends lived, it was the whitest towns I have ever seen while living in USA, granted my limited exposure to USA is primarily the tri-state area where I think diversity must be pretty high comparatively to rest of USA.

[Merus]

So I found this argument about the problems with describing spreading harmful ideas as 'offensive' really persuasive. I'm a big fan of being precise about the words one uses.

 

I found it so persuasive that I've changed my mind about callout culture - the vast majority of the people participating haven't actually been injured by whatever's been said, because the problem with what's been said is usually that it's perpetuating a harmful idea about marginalised people, not starting it. In that light, there's very little difference between a callout and a Gamergate attack.

[Gormongous]

In that light, there's very little difference between a callout and a Gamergate attack.

 

I'm curious to hear this argument in full, because if it flattens the many differences, both subtle and obvious, between calling out offensive behavior with the intent of limiting it further and harassing ideological enemies with the intent of ruining their lives, I'm interested in seeing how it actually holds water. If you're just saying that the superficial expression is the same with both, then that's fine, but if you're not, you ought to look at any "victim" of callout culture versus any victim of #GamerGate. If the intent is different and the outcome is different, then the only similarity is that they're both saying what certain people shouldn't do on the internet, which isn't that profound of a connection.

[Merus]

Oh god I forgot to link it I'm sorry, it's Katherine Cross.

 

http://feministing.com/2015/02/12/i-find-this-offensive-how-offense-discourse-traps-us-into-inaction/

 

My feeling about callout culture is my own extension of this argument.

[Gaizokubanou]

I'm curious to hear this argument in full, because if it flattens the many differences, both subtle and obvious, between calling out offensive behavior with the intent of limiting it further and harassing ideological enemies with the intent of ruining their lives, I'm interested in seeing how it actually holds water. If you're just saying that the superficial expression is the same with both, then that's fine, but if you're not, you ought to look at any "victim" of callout culture versus any victim of #GamerGate. If the intent is different and the outcome is different, then the only similarity is that they're both saying what certain people shouldn't do on the internet, which isn't that profound of a connection.

 

Lives can be ruined by callout culture, and arguably completely 'innocent' lives.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?hpw&rref=magazine&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=1

 

Because of my own train of thought, I find the last part about how most of callouts are mostly attempts for approval to ring true.  Maybe that says something uniquely flawed about myself, but given how nasty some callouts derail into and ultimately boils down into bunch of people self congratulating themselves for how right they were, I think it warrants a thought or two.

 

Edit: To clarify, I don't find them equal.  But I am worried about callout culture slowly becoming worse and worse.

[Ben X]

I agree with that article about the term "offensive" but I don't think it condemns call-out culture as a whole, more what is being called out and how. As the final sentence says, "let us retire 'that’s offensive' from our discourse and start saying what we mean". If the only problem with GamerGate was that they were telling people "I find what you said offensive" instead of clearly delineating the issues they have with it, a lot of people's lives would much happier.

 

The NY Times article reminds me of the time a bunch of fucking morons drove a paediatrician out of her home because they confused her job title with the word paedophile. I think these extreme cases should be taken as an illustration of how social media and call-out culture can be twisted into a bullying or mobbing tool, rather than be seen as discrediting either of those two things entirely. I hope at least some of those companies get sued for unfair dismissal so they learn their lesson; it's a shame the only repercussion for the writer who reported on and subsequently hounded Sacco was making an apology a year later, with the attitude that "she'll be fine eventually, if not already".

[clyde]

If my public relations employee fails to understand how tweeting that she is not afraid of getting AIDS because she is white might not be taken as satire, then she lacks the skills necessary for the job.

[Mangela Lansbury]

If my public relations employee fails to understand how tweeting that she is not afraid of getting AIDS because she is white might not be taken as satire, then she lacks the skills necessary for the job.

I strongly doubt the content of her tweet contributed nearly as much to her firing as the loud, violent reaction to it.

[clyde]

I strongly doubt the content of her tweet contributed nearly as much to her firing as the loud, violent reaction to it.

 

I agree. Maybe if the content of her tweet was enough to get her fired, then there wouldn't be as much of this loud, violent reaction. Hopefully they hired someone with a chronic disease to fill her role.

[Mangela Lansbury]

I really don't see making a tactless joke as a reason to fire someone so much as an opportunity to look at the corporate culture and figure out what's wrong that someone thinks that's okay. Firing her is action they took in response, which left behind the corporate environment that made her think it was okay to make a joke like that.

It's nice to think about her being fired in a punitive, retributive way, but it doesn't actually do anything other than make her life harder.

[clyde]

I really don't see making a tactless joke as a reason to fire someone so much as an opportunity to look at the corporate culture and figure out what's wrong that someone thinks that's okay. Firing her is action they took in response, which left behind the corporate environment that made her think it was okay to make a joke like that.

It's nice to think about her being fired in a punitive, retributive way, but it doesn't actually do anything other than make her life harder.

 

It frees up the position for someone who has tact.

It also gives casual white-supremacy some punitive consequence. Which may influence the corporate culture she left behind. Maybe it will influence some of the public relations workers that read Jon Ronson's article. 

 

I agree that it is a systemic problem, but maybe white-supremacy doesn't just hurt non-whites. 

[Argobot]

I know that people of privilege are likely to say things that are wrong without realizing it and deserve to have their mistakes pointed out, but not in the gleeful way that the Internet usually devolves too. Sacco said a dumb thing, but the response was gross and ultimately useless. You can't shame people into being more considerate. All this dog-piling does is create a culture of fear where people are afraid to say anything, because they have no idea what might set off the mob.

[Gormongous]

I know that people of privilege are likely to say things that are wrong without realizing it and deserve to have their mistakes pointed out, but not in the gleeful way that the Internet usually devolves too. Sacco said a dumb thing, but the response was gross and ultimately useless. You can't shame people into being more considerate. All this dog-piling does is create a culture of fear where people are afraid to say anything, because they have no idea what might set off the mob.

 

I don't really want to engage with the rest of the conversation, because I don't have anything useful to say to it, but is it really true that you can't shame people into being more considerate? I don't think that the deconstruction of Jim Crow and the marginalization of open racism in the American South was a hearts-and-minds sort of thing. I think there began to be real social and legal consequences to what was hitherto acceptable behavior, and people stopped doing it because of those consequences. Same for the mainstreaming of lesbian and gay culture in America. I know plenty of people who are still just as homophobic as they were in 1994, only now their homophobia isn't remotely as acceptable, so they keep it to themselves, and I think that's a good thing? Reasoned discourse on its own isn't a terribly effective tool against ignorance or hate, in my experience.

[Argobot]

That's just shaming people into being silent, but they still hold their negative views. I just don't see how that's good for the advancement of society.

[Mangela Lansbury]

There's also a difference between shaming someone and the kind of harassment that Sacco faced.

[Bjorn]

Biddle dismantled a portion of her life just because he could, because it was funny to him with a bonus that he got paid to do it. If I could eradicate one of the two behaviors, I think I would pick getting rid of someone gleefully fucking with strangers' lives over some kinda racist dumb tweets.

I'm not convinced that Biddle and his ilk aren't just as dangerous as the worst of gamergate.

[Gormongous]

That's just shaming people into being silent, but they still hold their negative views. I just don't see how that's good for the advancement of society.

I mean, isn't shaming hateful or offensive views into silence part of the advancement of society by itself? You're better able to express your views here because no one feels like they're able to tell you to shut up and get back in the kitchen (not that anyone here would, but for the purpose of my example, that attitude definitely still exists on the internet). Shaming discriminatory viewpoints into silence allows for more people to participate in the discourse, which is a net good for society. You might never change your racist uncle's mind, but getting him to shut up lets you bring your black friend to dinner, which is fine for a consolation prize.

[clyde]

That's just shaming people into being silent, but they still hold their negative views. I just don't see how that's good for the advancement of society.

 

I suspect that a big reason they hold those negative views are because they are frequently expressed in order to establish and maintain solidarity with their peers. I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day where he expressed some doubts about his racism being worthwhile. I can pretty much guarantee you that if I had said "Yeah, but you know how they are..." rather than being discouraging of the racism he was questioning, then he would have joined in for some casual white-supremacy talk. And that's how it is in a lot of work environments, the groups in power at many of the hierarchal levels (because whether or not the other guys in the warehouse think you are one of them is more important than if your boss does) express the views of white-supremacy for a sense of solidarity. I'm sure that me being a heterosexual white male makes it so that I'm more exposed to this racist chatter than others, but I have been in probably around 20-30 occupations in Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, and Hawaii and the only jobs where I haven't seen this be the case were the ones where I worked alone, and the one where the majority of people working was non-white. My point is that these stupid-jokes and one-offs are part of a communal appreciation of white-supremacy. How weird is it that it takes courage in pretty much every workplace I've been in to point out an offensive joke and try to explain how it creates an uncomfortable environment for people who aren't white, heterosexual men?It should take more courage to make the joke in the first place!

 

As far as harassment against Sacco goes, threats of violence and being excited that she's suffering are despicable, but firing her and threatening to strike rather than serve her seems like reasonable responses to me. I'm not trying to ignore the scale of attention she was receiving for her one tweet, I just don't know how to respond to it. I have no doubt that some of the individuals who were dog-piling on her Twitter-account ignored some racist, ableist offense that they witnessed in their physical space that same day (because it wasn't viewed as the group activity like the anti-Sacco campaign on Twitter was). I don't know what to do about it. But Ronson's examples are all of people being douche-bags. If Ronson wanted this article to be about online mobbing than he should have included an account of someone like Suey Park so that I wouldn't get confused about his motives.