A fellow Wolverine posted on a status I had about a Twitter war between Azealia Banks and Iggy. Naturally Banks went in on Iggy's sudden silence in the wake of the Brown and Garner decisions, leaving twitter gems such as "makes me wanna throw a jar of piss at her." Now just to be clear I loved Banks' comments as they were a raw and candid display of frustration with someone who has appropriated black and hip-hop culture without even attending the cultural tenets both cultures hold dear.
The Wolverine was displeased with what he perceived as a race to the bottom discussion about contentious political issues about race. He specifically pointed out the twitter battles that force people to take sides. His comment got me thinking about what "twitter battles" actually amount to. Twitter battles really only serve as passive aggressive mud slinging. Neither side will admit they are dismissing the other, but we can all read between the two lines of the pound symbol to see the incendiary subtext being made. And at that moment I took a step back and evaluated what I consider to be "my side."
While I have been critical of the social justice community as of late, I am still a strong advocate for Social Justice and its beliefs. Could it be that "my side" is equally guilty of fueling this passive aggressive propaganda fest, thus inhibiting any meaningful dialogue and progress from being made? And then I thought of the recent "twitter wars" and realized my answer is resounding no. I believe if we examine the Twitter sphere we will find that many "Twitter Wars" are actually digital social justice movements that are direct and candid which are then met with a slew of passive aggressive counter culture responses (i.e. oppressive, typically white,male,hetero dominated point of view).
Let's start with the #blacklivesmatter movement. It started in response to actual events that transpired (i.e. the killing of Garner and Brown). There was no underhanded or indirect acknowledgement of the events. In fact the movement adopted the language associated with the two murders. Many tweets had some derivative of "hands up, don't shoot" and "I can't breathe", tying the movement to the specific incidents and to a larger conversation surrounding police and race relations.
Now let's compare that with #alllivesmatter. #allivesmatter would not in the least bit be racist if it did not have such reactionary inertia behind it. It was created in response to #blacklivesmatter, but instead of being candid of its critical tone, it instead hides behind a facade of universal justice. Most tweets coming from #allivesmatter find an underhanded way to discredit the #blacklivesmatter movement. Even this seemingly harmless tweet which reads "People who can't understand the importance of human rights and justice need to educate themselves instead of run on emotions," is indirectly criticizing the emotional response by many blacks as an irrational response that borders on close minded. Instead of being candid of her criticism of the #blacklivesmatter movement the twitterer decided to shield herself with a blanket statement. #allivesmatter is ironically hyper conscious of #blacklivesmatter, while #blacklivesmatter is mostly focused on current events that are transpiring in the United States.
We can see the same trend in #allwomen vs the #notallmen tweets. The #notallmen tweets in this case were in the beginning and in response to the horrible Elliot Roger shooting. But did the tweets actually engage with the feminist conversation surrounding the shooting? No, in fact the whole purpose of the hashtag was to distance men from the reality. In both cases the two hashtags move away from the actual events that transpired and instead shield themselves with comments that undercut what actually happened. #allwomen is simply based on actual experiences. Reading the #allwomen tweets immediately make the experiences of women clear. @allwomen isn't undercutting #notallmen or trying to create a subtext for the #notallment tweets. Instead it provides real life testimony of the egregious sexist acts men do towards women.
So I'm basically done with this two sides nonsense. There aren't two sides to these stories. These stories are multi-faceted issues, but when your values systems differs in a fundamental way it's because you have become deaf to the experiences of the oppressed. The oppressed only speak with tongue in cheek when they must fake smiles to their oppressors. Twitter is a place for open discourse and naturally the oppressed are candid and direct (e.g. throwing a jar of piss on someone). The only people who are not direct are those who are oppressing and are in self denial. So please take your neutrality somewhere else. You're not neutral, you're petty and passive aggressive and I honestly can't deal with that shit.
The Wolverine was displeased with what he perceived as a race to the bottom discussion about contentious political issues about race. He specifically pointed out the twitter battles that force people to take sides. His comment got me thinking about what "twitter battles" actually amount to. Twitter battles really only serve as passive aggressive mud slinging. Neither side will admit they are dismissing the other, but we can all read between the two lines of the pound symbol to see the incendiary subtext being made. And at that moment I took a step back and evaluated what I consider to be "my side."
While I have been critical of the social justice community as of late, I am still a strong advocate for Social Justice and its beliefs. Could it be that "my side" is equally guilty of fueling this passive aggressive propaganda fest, thus inhibiting any meaningful dialogue and progress from being made? And then I thought of the recent "twitter wars" and realized my answer is resounding no. I believe if we examine the Twitter sphere we will find that many "Twitter Wars" are actually digital social justice movements that are direct and candid which are then met with a slew of passive aggressive counter culture responses (i.e. oppressive, typically white,male,hetero dominated point of view).
Let's start with the #blacklivesmatter movement. It started in response to actual events that transpired (i.e. the killing of Garner and Brown). There was no underhanded or indirect acknowledgement of the events. In fact the movement adopted the language associated with the two murders. Many tweets had some derivative of "hands up, don't shoot" and "I can't breathe", tying the movement to the specific incidents and to a larger conversation surrounding police and race relations.
Now let's compare that with #alllivesmatter. #allivesmatter would not in the least bit be racist if it did not have such reactionary inertia behind it. It was created in response to #blacklivesmatter, but instead of being candid of its critical tone, it instead hides behind a facade of universal justice. Most tweets coming from #allivesmatter find an underhanded way to discredit the #blacklivesmatter movement. Even this seemingly harmless tweet which reads "People who can't understand the importance of human rights and justice need to educate themselves instead of run on emotions," is indirectly criticizing the emotional response by many blacks as an irrational response that borders on close minded. Instead of being candid of her criticism of the #blacklivesmatter movement the twitterer decided to shield herself with a blanket statement. #allivesmatter is ironically hyper conscious of #blacklivesmatter, while #blacklivesmatter is mostly focused on current events that are transpiring in the United States.
We can see the same trend in #allwomen vs the #notallmen tweets. The #notallmen tweets in this case were in the beginning and in response to the horrible Elliot Roger shooting. But did the tweets actually engage with the feminist conversation surrounding the shooting? No, in fact the whole purpose of the hashtag was to distance men from the reality. In both cases the two hashtags move away from the actual events that transpired and instead shield themselves with comments that undercut what actually happened. #allwomen is simply based on actual experiences. Reading the #allwomen tweets immediately make the experiences of women clear. @allwomen isn't undercutting #notallmen or trying to create a subtext for the #notallment tweets. Instead it provides real life testimony of the egregious sexist acts men do towards women.
So I'm basically done with this two sides nonsense. There aren't two sides to these stories. These stories are multi-faceted issues, but when your values systems differs in a fundamental way it's because you have become deaf to the experiences of the oppressed. The oppressed only speak with tongue in cheek when they must fake smiles to their oppressors. Twitter is a place for open discourse and naturally the oppressed are candid and direct (e.g. throwing a jar of piss on someone). The only people who are not direct are those who are oppressing and are in self denial. So please take your neutrality somewhere else. You're not neutral, you're petty and passive aggressive and I honestly can't deal with that shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment