This is a post I wrote on July 17, 2020 to my facebook page (friends locked), so in interest of continuing to collect those longform thoughts elsewhere, placing it here with some light editing to remove specific names and add in proper links. There was some good discussion on original post, but again, it’s locked to people I know IRL- sorry (though most of my subscribers were part of it lol)! I’ve copied those thoughts into the postscript.
Title from a trivia tangent this week, when Nick & I couldn’t figure out what “kith” was.
On determining when to speak up vs. minding your own business: a brain dropping that's been percolating the last few days. tl;dr when is it appropriate to call out people before they fall for dangerous misinformation/conspiracy?
When I was younger, I got frustrated by inaccuracies and people being *wrong* for whatever reason. An uncle told me I shouldn't believe everything I saw on TV when I mentioned that the Magic School Bus said pickles were really cucumbers undergoing a process (and I feel vindicated that I should never have doubted MSB). I recall my second grade teacher telling me that there was a book for grownups about Not Sweating the Small Stuff and while I don't remember *what* I was fussed about, it was a valid point. In my early twenties, I very much was like that XKCD strip where they declare they can't go to sleep because someone is WRONG on the internet.
Since then, I've learned to evaluate my time and energy because it's *exhausting* to attempt to correct everyone, there are more productive uses of time/energy, and in some contexts, it's rude. However, in the current era there is an awful lot of casually harmful stuff out there, and an alarming number of people I know are drifting into it.
The analogy I picture is this: the people we see on our social media feeds are our virtual neighbors (sometimes literal), and you see the person next door start to get really into fireworks. They start with a sparkler, or one of those five foot flashy fountain things and ok, whatever, it's July I guess this is the season and it's in their yard [though it is fire season here out west…]. But, their fascination grows and they escalate to bigger and bigger things to mortars and then you wonder: at what point do I need to talk to them and/or call the fire department because this is a danger to themselves and the neighborhood?
Over 2/3rds of my life has been spent in red states; it's not surprising that I have conservative friends, family, and acquaintances. People that I've grown up with, worked with, or hung out with- you're shaped by your experiences, your community, etc. Your perspective is your space, I get it.
What's less acceptable are memes like, "Protestors blocking roads should get run over!" when 1) vehicles as means of attempted murder occurred >60 times in the last month and a half [since posting, well over 100 during summer 2020- updating to reflect the updated link] and 2) nearly everyone considered it horrific when Heather Heyer was murdered this way three years ago. Posts declaring the pandemic as 'fake news' even as total deaths in Oregon and Washington are higher than usual, indicating potential missed COVID deaths and/or health issues exacerbated by virus symptoms. [It’s bracing to read this a year later, after the holiday spikes in cases and deaths, and I’m twice as frustrated by people who are STILL dismissive of this past year and a half!]
There's some threads out there on how we should focus our energy on deplatforming harmful attitudes instead of trying to reform them because that tends to be a futile task, and I'm inclined to agree (as I’ve said before, you can lead a horse to water and even dunk its head in, but you can’t force it to drink and a stubborn ass will drown out of spite). I'd like to intervene BEFORE people become cultists, though, but am having trouble finding that boundary line between 'hey by the way [thing posted/shared/etc.] is [falsehoods/casual violence for laughs/callous disregard for life], wasn't sure you if intended that tho' and 'wow this is a shitty post, do you have brainworms' or even not saying anything at all because as someone told me when I was learning how to drive, "let [erratic driver] pass you; they can go have their accident somewhere else" (but then feeling responsible when they DO have that metaphoric accident and hurt other people).
this is longer typed out than it was in my head on commute, but I'm honestly curious to hear your thoughts on when to engage with other people on things that are demonstrably harmful (racist attitudes, prioritizing property over people), and whether or not we should feel responsible for the people we know etc. and if the nature of that relationship affects your actions
Some discussion from last year’s post:
AL: I engage if it's harmful. If it ruins friendships, it ruins friendships. Unfriending someone who will directly contribute to harming me or mine doesn't feel that negative, honestly. And with fewer friends, they'll have a smaller platform.
(Please note that this is not merely for a difference of opinions. Things I've lost friends over recently: driving drunk (I told him he was selfish and needed to change, he said we just saw the world differently). "Avoid all Asians" rhetoric (I mentioned how this was harming some of my friends in Seattle, she refused to see it that way and said "they" are more likely to have corona so it's just science. I tried one more time to show, scientifically, that's not true and Asia has more than just China, and it's not some random Chinese person's fault covid exists, but no dice) Supporting conversion therapy (I don't care if we grew up together, you still support this after seeing the work I've done the past few years, I'm done).
Things I have not unfriended people for: voting differently than me (except trump supporters, see putting me and mine in danger above). Having different religious beliefs. Being elitist about pineapple on pizza (everything goes on pizza). Unintentional racism - this one is tricky, but if someone is saying "I don't see color" or "it's a positive stereotype" or hasn't done research or doesn't understand a problem I try gently to probe them towards articles or ideas. There's a lot of hand holding. A lot of "I know you're not racist, I'm not saying you are, it's ok, you're a good person, please just read this article that a person of color wrote about her experience, it's ok, you're still a good person, please try to change this one thing." Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. If they double down and start with outright racist remarks, I peace out. Same with misogynistic behavior. "I'm not like the other girls" can be talked to. "Women all need to just stay in the kitchen where they belong" I don't fuck with.
Is that helpful?
Me: All good thoughts, similar to things in my head!
To me, Facebook isn't as personal since there's a broad swath of people on my list- for example I'm on good terms with former co-workers but also wouldn't say I'm super close with most, so it's no major loss to me if I mute them. I worry that without dissenting voices on their posts that they'll fall into more of an echo chamber and feel validated in posting straight up dog whistles that go unchallenged. But, it's also not necessarily my responsibility to be a "voice of reason" and it's presumptuous to think so... and yet I think some folks are potential risks to society.
Some commenters note that Facebook/social media in general is a horrible medium for such discussions, because you get outsiders driving by with bad faith or strawman arguments, inevitably turning discussions into dumpster fires.
CH: great questions here. this vox piece informs my actions: https://www.vox.com/.../broockman-kalla-deep-canvassing
I generally think that we have some obligation to reach out to friends and family that think differently than us, though obviously many of the qualifications that AL laid out are important in determining how and when to reach out.
My sense of the research on persuasion is that it's very unlikely that you'll change someone's mind in one single interaction, though I think it can be helpful to have some dissent or pushback to dangerous/problematic stuff visible for others to see? like, it may not change the mind of the poster, but it *could* matter to others that see the original post and are unsure what they think.
It's also valuable I think to be known as a voice of difference? as much as you're capable of, anyway. like, even if the poster doesn't change their mind, knowing that they personally know (and respect presumably) thinks differently. which ideally helps humanize the opposing viewpoint and demonstrate that it's reasonable to hold those beliefs.
I think it's also important to engage in a way that people respond well to? (this piece is good in that regard: https://medium.com/.../things-that-anti-racism-allies...)
those are sort of the general principles/ideas that I try to use when determining if I should comment on any given post or statement, which may just provoke more questions rather than answering yours haha
Me: Part of my motivation for getting in online discussions/arguments is that 'exposure therapy' ish kind of thing- in a lot of my friend circles, I'm likely the only or one of a handful of nonwhite people they know on a friend/acquaintance level, especially re: the people we grew up with. I know it's not my job/I'm not necessarily obliged to share/educate, but on a very cynical level I think the odds of someone considering me their 'Asian friend' are high and if that's the case, they should know about lived experiences. Or if I put on my science hat, I know how to find resources that show death rate statistics etc.
I really have no idea what to do re: 'deep state' conspiracy nonsense though, and I don't know how to pull someone away if they're getting sucked into groups with 'funny memes' that slide into cultiness
JC: Engage when you want and have the spell slots for it, but have a plan and a goal, or else you get caught up in a never ending "last word" argument.
The important part is learning when to stop because they don’t want a discussion but an argument with no solution
Me: Oh, I do understand the "ok but what is my ultimate goal here" from years arguing on forums and feeling like talking at walls. Spell slots are a great way to think about where to put time/effort/energy.
Sometimes I try to match the energy/effort of the post, like if it's someone sharing a meme with no commentary I'll probably just do a drive by Snopes link but if someone writes a long thing about freedom to die drinking wine because life happens, I'm going to spend a little bit more time on it.
And now I’m curious about who’s deathwish wine post I was subtweeting there! No matter. Anyway, still a question I’m less certain about, but I think my solution has been to more clearly establish my boundaries and challenge things when they cross into my spaces.