Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

My tweets

  • Tue, 12:31: Love/hate when professional & personal interests mix - solid SI piece on unique legal issues of @MLS labour dispute: http://t.co/unrSiXxc76
  • Tue, 13:55: Nobody asked me, but I have some very mixed thoughts on this Chait piece on SJ culture that's inflamed Twitter today: http://t.co/BBGOQDGf1w
  • Tue, 14:02: Unfortunately, I can't express them now because I have to actually work. :D
  • Tue, 14:03: But @hodgman's responding Twitter essay today and @tressiemcphd's Dec piece on "Racists Getting Fired" http://t.co/o3cUCtvJUl are pro-read.
  • Tue, 14:04: In case you feel like trying to divine my opinions from my influences (and prior knowledge of me, sure, if you want to CHEAT. :P)
  • Tue, 14:28: Surprise, my meeting got cancelled so fuck it, we're doing it live. BASICALLY:
  • Tue, 14:29: 1) You have a right to your voice. You do not have the right to a platform or an audience. SO MANY PEOPLE who are used to always having both
  • Tue, 14:30: 2) cannot STAND this fact and write whiny thinkpieces about how political correctness is ruining the campus.
  • Tue, 14:32: 3) You have the right to your voice, other people have the right to use their voices to respond. But the frame of rights only take us so far
  • Tue, 14:34: 4) And the frame of "counter speech with speech" only takes us so far, because speech always has side effects that it's wise to consider.
  • Tue, 14:36: 5) And they both rely on the context provided by their speakers. So yes, I have a lot of time for the argument that callout culture's rooted
  • Tue, 14:37: 6) in the "Marxist" idea that giving both the oppressed and the oppressor "free speech" does not get you very far in addressing oppression.
  • Tue, 14:38: 7) (though unlike (apparently) Chait I do not think this is axiomatically a bad thing.)
  • Tue, 14:43: 8) But at the same time, nobody who knows me can be surprised by the fact that I frequently wonder if that culture hasn't gone toxic.
  • Tue, 14:45: 9) @michelleinbklyn wrote a much better discussion of the issue here: http://t.co/xGfgv2gBPH and no doubt I've posted others before.
  • Tue, 14:48: 10) The chilling effect of "say controversial/even mildly off-script thing in public, get social-media dogpiled by mob" IS NOT OPPRESSION.
  • Tue, 15:19: 11) However I don't believe it's harmless either. Leaving entirely aside the extent to which it can have offline effects (doxxings, firings)
  • Tue, 15:27: 12) it's also toxic and silencing to the discussion. Sealioning doesn't get any better when it's from the side of the angels either.
  • Tue, 15:30: 13) Words matter. And social media is particularly prone to creating a "oneself against the world" effect because of its inherent qualities.
  • Tue, 15:32: 14) (to wit, relative anonymity makes everyone louder and harsher, nuance is difficult to apply, and opposing groups seem larger.)
  • Tue, 15:34: 15) But of course none of this effect is really new to marginalized people, so there's an extent to which criticism of it by the privileged
  • Tue, 15:34: 16) sounds a lot like only noticing how much the boot hurts when you are finally the one being kicked.
  • Tue, 15:43: 17) But at the same time I'm not sure what hounding people into apologies for using "coloured people" instead of "people of colour" actually
  • Tue, 15:45: 18) accomplishes (to use one recent example.) So I have to maintain this weird arm's-length dance with people/causes I sympathise with.
  • Tue, 15:46: 19) And I remain unsure what the answer is or if there even is an answer. Here endeth today's Rant Into The Ether.