a thought about internet interaction

[jlh]

I think the problem with posting is that the things that are on my mind don't really feel post-able. Or at least, I can't figure out how to post about them in a way that anyone will interact with. I'm sort of haunted by so many saying that when I post they don't know what to say to me; it makes me feel rather badly, like I'm inadvertently intimidating. I want to be welcoming!

I've been told to post what I want, but the thing is, what I want is to start conversations. I rarely have a thing I want to declare from the rooftops; I have the beginnings of a thought that I want to talk to people about to get more fully formed. Or sometimes, I have a reaction to a thing and want to see if I'm the only one, or not. I'm beginning to think that LJ is actually really bad for either of those things.

But now that things are better in LJ-land, let me post a thought and see how that goes.

So I had this epiphany, that much of the time many of the people floating around the internet are looking to be told, or to confirm for themselves, that they are smarter than everyone else. I read this fantastic tumblr post by lowendtheory about social justice online that yes, has some somewhat ableist and judgy problems regarding who's a "real" activist and who isn't, perhaps shoehorns class and a critique of capitalism either where it doesn't belong or at least very clumsily, and seems to lump everyone in with Jezebel, but does have this bit that my heart heard and thrilled to:

But I think that what makes it possible to ignore the fact that I was calling it out was the fact that I was also trying not to couple that critique with a retreat into a kind of smug critical self-satisfaction where I get to feel morally superior to or smarter than what or whom I’m critiquing.

It’s not only because I think that style of critique has led to barely disguised displays of racism. It’s also because I think that style of critique often allows us 1) to get away with learning very little about what we’re criticizing by applying the same critical formula to everything and anything, so long as we can show evidence of the ways in which it is misogynist and homophobic—and, for that matter, racist; and 2) to imagine our criticism as transcending the object of our critique by oversimplifying it (i.e. “TTC says stuff for attention”) or by performing a weird kind of doublespeak where we claim in one breath that it has no meaning and then, in the next breath, point out the homophobic and sexist meaning that is everywhere in it.

Now, one can say that lowendtheory fell into hir own trap here, by positioning hirself as "morally superior to or smarter than" the SJ critics that sie is critiquing. And I would argue that it is actually very difficult, in an atmosphere that is this judgy and this concerned with morals, not to do that, not to imply that someone who doesn't agree with you doesn't merely have some other opinion but is wrong, and dangerously so.

And taking a step back from that even further, I would say that this smug, superior, self-satisfied stance is one that many, many, many people like reading, and will get you a great deal of attention. The people who agree with you get to feel smug, superior, and self-satisfied along with you, and the people who disagree will come flying in, enraged. Both groups will pass the link around all over the place; both groups will increase your hit count and/or your comments; both groups will raise your profile. This is the Gawker clickbait model, followed in many other places as well. It also creates lots of false dichotomies that people get to feel that they are on the "right" side of.

I personally don't trust anyone who tells me I'm on the side of the angels. For me, that sort of thing isn't just distasteful, but dangerous. Nearly all of my own bad behavior can be traced back to a moment where I thought I was smarter or knew better than someone else. I don't like people telling me how smart I am. I don't like those weird intellectual king of the mountain games.

Anyway, the larger thing is: the more I avoid it the happier I am online. And so very often when I keep in mind how positively people react to being told how damn smart they are, it explains things on line that I find completely inexplicable either in their presentation or their popularity. I think, "Oh, it's doing that thing!" and then I go on my merry way doing something else.

And if you're the sort of person who loves that, then rock on! You will find many places where this is going on. And I bet we get along just fine. But I probably won't follow very many of your links. And you probably won't follow mine, and that is totally A-OK because the internet is a big place full of AWESOME THINGS.

Comments

[sajia_kabir]

How smart you are to say this! (sorry, couldn't resist) Actually, I'm thankful that you wrote this because, as usual, you wrote about things that have been barely on the edge of my consciousness, hammering for attention. I'm glad you've made me aware of a major fault of mine; I was sort of aware of it before, which is why I've recently avoided writing the pointed one-liners that were my stock in trade and am trying to write longer sustained posts.

[jlh]

And the thing is, pointed one-liners get you a lot of praise and you-go-girls and attention and all of that, and longer sustained thoughtful posts really don't. So I think it's not just that people are doing a thing that might be a personal fault—whatever, we all have them. It's that the overall internet system to a certain extent is set up to reward those things because they're easy to digest, and what people want is wide and shallow, not deep.

It's sort of akin to the whole, trying to get people in fandom to write more CoC's and ladies and less white boy slash. There is a lot of reward for writing white boy slash. There is much less reward in writing something else. And that's built into the structure for a lot of reasons, and hey, many of us are here for the socializing, so doing something that's going to isolate you really isn't as fun and then also doesn't have a reward at the end. I know there are a lot of one liners about not giving people cookies, but I think we also have to recognize that we are also asking them to give up cookies.

[alwayswondered]

I think this is why I instinctively avoid participating in much social justice online; I don't want to sound as though I'm setting myself up as a better person than whatever I'm critiquing. When I do post links to things I try to be as matter-of-fact and 'this is happening over there' about it as I can but I still feel as though people are going to look at me and think "there's another baby Social Justice Warrior who wants to be seen to be on the ~*right*~ side."

It's overwhelmingly more likely that no one's looking at me at all, but I am happier just reading without engaging.

[jlh]

I totally know what you're talking about and in a lot of ways it's safer to lurk, definitely, because there are a lot of sharks out there who are only too happy to point out your flaws, and not in a spirit of helpfulness.

But it's funny you say that right now because apparently in the SJ circles there's a sad problem going on right now, a personal one you've probably seen mentioned (and I've only seen it mentioned) and there's the usual fannish "everyone must make a public statement about what side they're on because silence is complicity" which I think is a horrible argument and a horrible way to call people out, many of whom don't actually have an opinion and who shouldn't have to, and really, who cares what it is.

In that original post on tumblr, the event that spurred the post includes someone dismissing someone else as "determining on a relatively arbitrary scale their 'respect' for me." I wish that I'd read someone saying that sooner, and was better equipped to dismiss people who say they "lost respect" for me because of something I've done, especially something in my personal life. It's like, well, that's really strange, that your respect is so capricious that you would lose respect for me because of that, and that you'd built me up in your head as something I'm not is not really my problem.

[verity]

Yup yup yup.

Also, here's the OTHER reason I don't get into social justice arguments online. I'm a highly educated and well-read feminist with an academic background in women and gender studies. I am not going to get into arguments with people just because I have citations backing me up. That would be rude. (My degree does not invalidate your experience.) Nor do I think people have to be "feminists" to work for social justice.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but just like I believe that every person deserves justice, I think every person can contribute to it. Shutting people down because you have a smart mouth or academic privilege or a holier-than-thou attitude is deeply unproductive. We should do our work with compassion for both ourselves and others. And I have compassion for people who fuck stuff up. I fuck stuff up. We all make mistakes in the process of learning and growing and trying to figure what's just and ethical. We are all part of systemic oppression. Figuring that out is the first step to actually creating dialogue and acting for change.

[jlh]

just like I believe that every person deserves justice, I think every person can contribute to it. [...] We should do our work with compassion for both ourselves and others. And I have compassion for people who fuck stuff up.

God, just, yes yes yes. The more that I wander toward compassion the better things go, for me.