Friday, October 27, 2023

Silence & Violence

 Many activists on social media (and elsewhere) shout the phrase "Silence is Violence"

That statement implies that you're either with us or with the bad guys.  That being neutral gives aid & comfort to their enemies.

To those activists, violence isn't just bombs, bullets, kicks & punches. To them, violence is also any disagreement with them, any inconvenience to them, anything that gets in their way to victory.

They claim that the use of hurtful words is psychological warfare.

But the phrase "Silence is Violence" is a form of psychological warfare


Here's a perfect tweet on this from 2022

https://twitter.com/Louis_Allday/status/1573013966107906048

The way Twitter makes people feel compelled constantly to comment publicly about situations/issues they know little or *nothing* about is very damaging. As is the degradation of the basic understanding that some discussions are appropriate for public consumption & others aren’t.

And that's the thing. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be ready to go public on your side on every issue.

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have more people fighting on my side. 

I mean, there's a reason I blog and make YouTube speeches. To get more people on my side. 


But not everyone who is silent is doing it out of malice. 

Some of the silence is due to things like

  • being too busy to survive (or helping their family to survive) to be paying attention to all that's going on in this world
  • Not enough time or mental energy to research the issues that are out there
  • Not having the mental capacity to understand all the issues
  • Some people are just very introverted. Public attention has the same harmful effect on them just like how peanuts & bee stings have harmful effects on those with allergies
  • Some people have difficulty expressing themselves
  • Some people are afraid to lose their job and are one missed paycheck (or direct deposit) away from becoming homeless.
Not everyone has the privilege to be publicly vocal about things.

Also, many issues have TONS of nuances that don't fit a 280-character-limit 

And not everyone has the time and mental energy to explain the many nuances of the issues.

And to many activists, they consider the word "nuance" as fighting words. How dare you mention that things aren't as simple as a phrase that can fit within a 280-character limit.

For one example, there's the Israel-Palestine conflict.

New York Times writer Elizabeth Spiers had strangers on social media DEMANDING HER to make a public statement about the latest Israel-Palestine crisis. 

Nevermind that she never lived there, and has other things in her life that also demand her full attention.

But she has written a very classic response to those idiot activists who say stupid phrases like "Silence is Violence".

The article title? "I Don’t Have to Post About My Outrage. Neither Do You."

Elizabeth Spiers, “I Don’t Have to Post about My Outrage. Neither Do You.,” The New York Times, October 17, 2023,

Here are some excerpts from that article

But not everyone was taking a side. As I scrolled through my timeline, I saw lots of random citizens being told that if they didn’t speak out, they, too, would have blood on their hands.

People speaking from both the right and the left seemed to attribute my silence to depraved indifference to human suffering, though they were divided on which humans were suffering. As it happens, I had been dealing with shingles (zero stars, do not recommend) and the depression I struggle with periodically. I was tired and overwhelmed, as are a great many other people. But the voices yelling at me and anyone else who failed to post seemed to believe that not making a statement was itself a statement — and an immoral one, at that.


and the reason more don't take a public stance on Israel-Palestine

There’s a facile version of taking a stand on social media that generates righteous back patting but reduces complex issues to a simple yes or no. Taking simplistic stands can also lead to twisting words. Concern for Palestinians is portrayed as support for Hamas or hatred toward Israel or Jews in general. Anger about Hamas’s deadly attacks on Israeli citizens — or any mention of antisemitism — is portrayed as denigrating the dignity of all Palestinian lives. This kind of thinking is deeply unserious and further fuels hostilities, warping nuanced positions into extremism and mistaking tweet-length expressions of outrage for brave action in the face of atrocity.

 

and this 

Sitting with uncertainty is hard, especially when social media has primed us to expect perfect real-time information during traumatic events and to want instantaneous answers and resolution. Moral certainty is an anchor we cling to when factual certainty is not possible. And the faster we express it, the more certain we appear. The most righteous among us post — and do it immediately.


Totally agree with that part.  In most incidents, the facts of the case aren't made public within the first 48 hours. In many cases, even 48 days later, there are still facts not yet made public. There are things to investigate and verify before officials make official statements. But conspiracy theorists don't even have to wait 48 seconds before they spread half-truths and non-truths on social media. 

That's why I tend to restrain my commenting on very recent incidents. I prefer to wait until the facts come out. It's also why  I usually wait before I blog on the topic.  

 

Now, the following paragraph is more classic than classic. It should be studied by future generations in high school & college courses. It's that important


 

Knee-jerk social media posts are not what bother me most, though. Instead, it’s the idea that not posting is wrong somehow — that everyone needs to speak, all the time. It discourages shutting up and listening and letting the voices that matter the most be heard over the din. It implies it’s not OK to have any uncertainty about what’s going on or any kind of moral analysis that does not lend itself to presentation in a social media post. It does not leave time or space for people to process traumatic events in the sanctuary of their own minds or to gather more information before pronouncing a judgment. It pressures people who don’t have an opinion yet or are working out what they think to manufacture one and present it to a jury of total strangers on the internet who will render an instant verdict on its propriety. 

Yes, Yes, Yes to ALL THAT!

People need to be allowed time & space to process traumatic events.

The "Silence is Violence" fanatics refuse to allow people time & space to process traumatic events.

In other words, the "Silence is Violence" crowd commit extreme psychological violence against those who need time & space to process traumatic events. 

This reminds me of back in 2020/2021 when idiot activists got mad at Chloe Kim (Olympic snowboarder) for not being fast enough to make a public statement against anti-Asian racism when it turned out that she was dealing with her own trauma of anti-Asian racism.

Alyssa Roenigk, “Olympic Gold Medalist Chloe Kim Shares Her Experiences with Anti-Asian Hate,” ESPN, April 2, 2021, 

In an interview with ESPN on Thursday night, Kim opened up about her experience of racism, her fears for her safety and that of her parents, and her decision to speak out as a high-profile Asian American woman.

"I was getting messages from people telling me I'm part of the problem because I was being silent," Kim told ESPN. "I was like, 'Do you realize I'm also Asian American and this affects me?' It was a lot of white people telling me they were upset at my silence."

Kim said she hoped her Instagram post raised awareness about the prevalence of Asian American hate and illustrated that she, too, deals with discrimination on a daily basis. Her silence was not due to apathy, she said, but fear. "Just because I am a professional athlete or won the Olympics doesn't exempt me from racism," Kim said. "I get hundreds of those kinds of messages monthly. I see maybe 30 a day."

 Also note that Chloe Kim became famous because she was a teen athletic prodigy, when most people her age haven't even developed a political or sociological philosophy, much less know how to express it.  You can't expect teen prodigies (whether in sports, arts, etc)  to be articulate on social issues like how Malcolm X or Martin Luther King were in their 30's. 

This is especially because teen prodigies are still in their teens and therefore still learning how to deal with socio-emotional issues that affect them. Most adults aren't good at expressing how they deal with socio-emotional issues, but people were mad at a then-teenager for not knowing how to express her grief of dealing with anti-Asian racism? 

While people were expecting a then-teenaged Chloe Kim to speak like Malcolm X, we have to remember that the real-life Malcolm X wasn't an activist as a teen. As a teen & young adult, he was a street hustler.   He started to become more educated in sociology and politics while incarcerated. In other words, some people need a little more time to mature before they become ready for prime time

But people demanded a then-teenaged Chloe Kim to have Malcolm X level of articulateness on social issues, when Malcolm X didn't become THE Malcolm X until later in life?

Also, people need time to investigate the issue before making public statements. Not everyone is versed on the nuances of Israel-Palestine, climate change, criminal justice, economics, or whatever else is the hot topic of the day.

So to all you idiot activists, lay off with the "Silence is Violence" Nonsense, and learn how to communicate your ideas to those who aren't publicly on your side.

Learn how to convince people. 

Learn how to convince people to join your side.

Learn to lead by example, instead of acting so self-righteous all the time.  
(and this "silence is violence" preaching is the epitome of self-righteous)



Is it easier said than done? Of course. 

But now that you know that "Silence is Violence" isn't effective in gaining sincere support, it's time to learn to talk to the people, instead of always talking at the people


=====
Also check out this 4-minute video from the New York Times, titled "Pick a Side. Pick a Side. Pick a Side. Now."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/opinion/israel-palestine-social-media.html