I see a lot of people reacting negatively to minorities and leftists breaking down on social media over something seemingly trivial. They will often say “wow they are making us look bad, we need to make sure to stop anyone near me from doing that”
The thing about that though is right wingers will push and push and push. They will spend all day every day harassing someone until they finally break down and have an outburst. It doesn’t matter how much of a model minority you think you are, you have a breaking point. The straw that breaks the camels back doesn’t look significant on its own, that is the entire point. There is no way this will ever look good for us, and there is no way we can all tank it to the face forever. The mentality that these “make us look bad” is exactly the reactionary thought we are trying to fight.
In essence people are seeing reactionary action done in response to our open existence, and thinking preventing our existence to reduce reactionary action is the right way forward. Reactionaries are attacking because it is not what they want. I don’t want a world where reactionaries are content not to fight, that just means they’ve won.
They will get those clips one way or another. They will loot in riots themselves and record it if they have to. They will spew their shit regardless of what we do. The best thing we can do is accept it and actually get shit done.
This is just an argument for ceding space to conservatives, which makes them seem more prevalent than they are, because they’ve driven the opposition away.
Whether social media is essential to life or not, it’s a normal part of modern life, and telling people to avoid it is no different than telling people to avoid bars or clubs if they don’t want to be harassed. It’s just victim blaming.
OP’s argument is spot-on: don’t get angry at “sub-optimal” reactions to right-wing assholes’ rhetoric, get angry at the right-wing assholes pushing that rhetoric.
The “wer schreit hat nicht recht” (lit. “who shouts is not right”) schtick of treating emotions as childish or bad in an argument, is an unhealthy, toxic trait anyways, and we should be rejecting it roundly rather than trying to ‘win’ by that metric.
The irony of a Beehaw user trying to making this argument in a Beehaw thread…
The correct comparison would be that it is like returning to the same bar, on the same day, at the same time when you know the people who have harassed you previously will be there. It is not victim blaming to suggest avoiding that particular bar if attending it is causing the person to have a mental breakdown. Giving choice, power and control back to the victim is not the same as blaming them for their situation. Again, we are having this conversation in a Beehaw thread; if you don’t understand the significance of that then I don’t know what else to say.
Irony? I think you’re perhaps assuming that my argument for not ceding space to conservatives is a call for equal representation of ideologies in spaces, but it’s not.
I fully believe conservatism (not to be confused with the many groups that have overlap with conservatism in particular places, e.g. religious people, who are not in fact all conservative) is a harmful ideology, and should be driven out of public spaces like assholes should be kicked out of bars when they harass people.
I’m not making an argument against echo chambers, just ceding space to conservatism.
Would love to hear your thoughts in more depth on this. What is the significance?