But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"
"white silence is violence"
googles
Still no idea how that could be applied to my post - but I am most definitely white, and after a bit of introspection, can't think of anything I've constructively done to address racism outside of late-night internet posts.
So whilst I'd like to think I was "non-racist" - I do now feel a bit shitty that I entertain the cognitive-dissonance of being "anti-racist" and "not having ever done anything that was anti-racist"
Then if I cookie-cutter myself out to everybody else - I now see how racism flourishes, whilst the majority tut-tuts.
Was that your point?
Kudos to you for leading by example.
But genuinely do appreciate your reply - makes that little voice in my head feel "less alone"
What was interesting/depressing was my "how about a creed" post was getting a few up-votes, then the moment I replied below saying maybe I was a "crap anti-rascist", my OP started to get down-votes.
Text hadn't changed, but by putting some context around it, it was read differently.
It could be just a reflexive thing to seeing a given username show up too often. I wouldn’t presume it was any deeper than that.
In my OP I very deliberately stuck to abstracts that I'd hoped "nobody could disagree with".
And nobody seemed to - until I put more words beneath it.
You're right though - engaging with your own posts is perceived as negative. People read the platitude and hit 'like' - the more you put beneath it, the greater the opportunity for something to annoy somebody (and scroll up to try to kill the thread)
The systems and histories in place we battle with are much bigger, and much older, than we are. Unless your explicit goal is to set out to change the world (which frankly is a shitty goal and usually leads to some kind of genocide), literally the best advice is "think globally, act locally", as "outdated" as that saying I suppose now is.
Except that it is especially true when what you want is positive social change. Think about the implications of someone who first implements your initial original post ("just stop and think for a sec"), and then also implements your second ("is there anything I can do here?"). That's enough. Literally that, when applied on a large scale, would change the world, in a way far more positive than riots and social justice movements.
See, humans are really terrible creatures. We have a bad habit of overcorrecting and, you know, killing millions of people in the name of an ideal. We've done it what, dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of times.
It's the difference between water carving a river, and a nuke carving a crater. The first one takes longer but is alot less destructive.
Then I lost your thread.
Then I agreed with you, "we're terrible"
We should do what we can do, what fate and hard work have placed in front of us.
"Change the world" as a cause in and of itself has killed far too many people to be considered a valid goal. We all believe our vision for the world is the right or best one, except it seems we're actually pretty bad at forcing the world to look like us.
You were berating yourself for believing in anti-racism, while not actually physically doing anything about it. My point was this: These are not contradictory things, and don't let emotional blackmailers convince you otherwise. You do what is in front of you to do, and only that. If there's not actually anything in front of you to do, that's it. Is there or isn't there? That's 100% up to you. I can't say there is or there isn't. But it is important to question even the statement that there is something to do because otherwise you get caught in a Kafka trap of never actually living in a just world (tilting at smaller and smaller windmills until you're swinging at air).
The idea is that ineffectual discourse without actual efforts towards reform is a method of signalling that one wants change while benefiting from the status quo of oppression.
Discussion is great, but the discussion is supposed to result in change, not a vortex of words which have no connection to reality.
When people advocate for lofty civility above all else when the status quo is violent, aggressive, demeaning and unjust, it shows that the priority is not justice; it is the maintenance of the current order.
Is this position accurate? I don't know. There's obviously countervailing concerns regarding having a chilling effect on the market of ideas, but like all tough questions, it's likely a difficult situation with no clear cut answer and two virtues being traded-off against each other. This seems to be borne out by the fairly dramatic spectrum of positions adopted on the issue across the globe.
So question comes down to, did I have the moral obligation to act?
Personally I lean towards yes, but can at least understand where the people who say no might be coming from.
While I agree that silence is violence at its face is literally false, that's the general principal it's meant to invoke, that injustice can only be stopped when bystanders cease to tolerate it. The victim cannot stop it, and the perpetrator won't. Thus those who tut tut and move on with their day become complicit in allowing it to continue.
That is what the commenter is feeling vaguely guilty about, and it's a healthy thing to feel. I know I have guilt in my past where I have failed to help someone when I had the opportunity, and that guilt that comes from recognition of that has driven me to be less of a bystander later in life.
You could debate what the morally correct thing is or isn’t if you want, but you can’t debate that you committed an act of violence.
We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavor to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed position, I can honestly take forward
I was trying to explain that because the internet has increased the visibility of ones opinions to a global scale, and a recent increase in the use of both public shaming as well as punitive financial measures (fired from job, boycott) it could be dangerous to opine about anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
I think speech can definitely lead to violence - and speech can also counteract it. Neither directly, but the delta has real-world repercussions.
Or to look at it the other way - can you come up with an example of violence, that wasn't preceded by rhetoric?
I don't disagree with you on that. We can say "A can lead to B" and "A can counteract B".
I'm lost at the leap to "A is B" and "NOT(A) by COLOR = B".
I could speak or not speak, and even do so out of negligence or spite. My choices may have effects and consequences, but violence does not mean "anything with effects and consequences".
It feels too much like the missing piece is "this is what we say the word means now, QED". It's all too convenient that a conversation can be shut down by calling it violence. Implicating people is divisive. By it's own logic, redefining violence to include speech is itself a form of violent speech because it causes conflict.