—
I got into a fight on Facebook today. That’s rare for me. Over politics of all things. That’s even rarer.
Jude Mikal: Why It’s Not OK for Liberal White Men to De-Friend Over Politics
Facebook is usually a place of respite for me. A place I go to write banal status updates like:
My ‘truncated review’ of the new Under Armor underwear I’m sporting today would go a little something like this: woops! I think I accidentally put on women’s Spanx. In related news, my butt is so firm you could bounce a quarter off of it.
Or,
“Finally got the baby to take a nap – just in time for a little trick I call the ol’ Mikal “mad-dash-to-clean-the-house-before-company-arrives-and-I-apologize-for-not-tidying-up-even-though-I-totally-did-it’s-just-that-my-house-looked-like-a-tornado-hit-it-before” number.
Or even,
“I’m going to try to make ‘casual Friday a think at the office. Sadly, given my usual wardrobe, I think I’m really going to have to do it up in order for anyone to notice. Fortunately, I think I have just the crop top…”
Some might call me a narcissist with a bit of a penchant for dad jokes. It’s not the usual recipe for political idealism…or ideals…or even really ideas. But I made a new friend while blogging. A smart friend. A smart friend, with political ideologies who people seem to listen to. My antithesis. The yin to my yang. The person who holds fervent beliefs – beliefs I also hold – but who expresses them feverishly, articulately, and with a passion I can only seem to muster for Taco Bell and the Simpsons marathon coming up this Thanksgiving.
So it should have come as no surprise that this friend got into a heated political discussion with one of his friends on Facebook: a discussion that ended with a fuck off and a friend delete.
And yet, the whole interaction got me to thinking: at what point is it appropriate for liberals to strike back?
|
I am sure I would have agreed with my friend’s political position, but as a natural peacemaker – and Facebook friend hoarder – I wrote to my new friend saying, ”I think a lot of us get filled with a sense of righteous indignation when people dismiss bigotry, racism, and misogyny as par-for-the-course in political discourse. But I wonder who wins when we respond by de-friending. Your friend probably left the conversation all the more convinced that liberals are overly emotional and unable to ground their opinions in facts. Sometimes I think our obligation as *white, male* liberals in particular is to use our positions of privilege to continue to challenge conservative political ideals in areas where we are more likely to be heard…where we speak the language.”
My friend replied that he’d stayed the course for months – and that, at some point, liberals have the right to defend themselves. And this set the tone for a series of comments, none of which agreed with my point of view. According to the comments: we, as liberals, have stayed the course long enough; at some point we have the right – if not the obligation – to fight back; this may not be our typical behavior, but desperate times…and so on. Soon it had become clear that I had lost my Facebook fight.
The score was: Ideology, 1; Diplomacy, 0.
And yet, the whole interaction got me to thinking: at what point is it appropriate for liberals to strike back? How often do we have to be diplomatic before non-diplomacy is in order? I mean, if I don’t plunder and pillage 360 days a year – aren’t I mostly not a pillager? Moreover, are those obligations different for a white men liberals than for other liberals?
When we allow righteous indignation to couple with a sense of moral superiority, we widen the chasm between liberals and conservatives that white men are in a unique position to close.
|
As white men, we occupy social positions characterized by high privilege and low burden. Most liberal white men acknowledge this. Many of us even use positions of privilege to speak out against injustices. It is called advocacy and is an effective use of privilege. We use our voice to amplify others’. Yet many of us get swept up in emotion, righteously indignant at social injustices. We dig in our heels, tear apart friendships and family relationships under the auspices that we sit atop the moral high ground. We tell ourselves that we are being disloyal to the cause if we sit idly by and allow people to say disparaging things about women or people of color. We take on not only the cause, but the personal affront. In a sense, we appropriate the cause and the hurt as our own.
Conservatives are just liberals who haven’t been educated, enlightened, exposed, or convinced. And it is only through education, enlightenment, exposure, and convincing that we reach the critical numbers necessary for political representation. So the problem with white men appropriating the experience and hurt of under-represented people is that we minimize their emotional burden, and we stop advocating. When liberal white men get angry and tired, we ultimately take the easy road that is only available to us because we’re white men. We rest. And while we rest, we leave the fight to women and people of color. We stop using our voice to recruit. We slam doors because dammit, sometimes that feels good. But for every door slammed…for every democrat vote lost – we put someone else in jeopardy, while we stay safe. It is not our future on the line.
When we allow righteous indignation to couple with a sense of moral superiority, we widen the chasm between liberals and conservatives that white men are in a unique position to close. Fatigued and frustrated, we retreat into our camp of like-minded progressive liberals who will reaffirm our beliefs – who will reaffirm that we’re better off with one less friend, if that one less friend is a racist, or a bigot. We fail to “close the sale”, to recruit one more voice that could ensure the protection of the rights of the people for whom we advocate.
So to white liberal men, I am encouraging you to keep talking to conservatives. You are in a unique position to be heard. Don’t get swept up in emotions. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are not our story, so we are not allowed to suffer from the same fatigue. We can continue to advocate. And we advocate best when we echo, point to, and make space for others’ voices.
◊♦◊
Mike Kasdan: It’s My Facebook and I’ll De-Friend If I Want To. Liberals Don’t Have to be Nice to Everyone Always.
I don’t know Jude very well, but he seems like a nice person.
I too pride myself on being a nice person. It’s pretty much the one thing I ask of my teenage son: be nice.
If I had unlimited bandwidth and patience that exceeded that of an ordinary human, I might agree completely with what Jude is saying here. But I don’t. For you scientists, here is how I see it:
It’s like the “Ideal Gas Law.” It is true under “ideal conditions,” and knowing it as a guideline is incredibly helpful for all sorts of applications. But because life rarely operates under “ideal conditions,”
I’ll get back to this.
Like Jude, I like me some Facebook. Sure it’s good for goofy interconnections, funny memes, posting picture of my kids, and for sharing Vines of the NY Knicks’ Kristaps Porzingis, but – to me – its also become a place to connect with a group of wickedly smart and passionate and diverse people that I am lucky to call my Facebook Friends.
Like Jude, I am a liberal. I am also a white man. And I do a lot of posting and talking and writing about topics like racism and sexism and bigotry, both on Facebook and as a contributor to The Good Men Project. I recognize too that these—and others, like gun control, abortion, the Israel-Palestine dispute, the NC transgender bathroom laws—are polarizing topics and that bridging the gap on polarizing topics is really the only way forward.
A ways back, I wrote a post called The Singular Wisdom of Both Not Giving a F*ck and Totally Giving a F*ck (At The Same Time) in which I summarized my philosophy on, well, life. It went something like this:
1. Be Kind.
2. Always be open to learning.
3. When you see something, say something.
4. And then do something.
Back then, I had never unfriended anyone on Facebook. And, I prided myself on what I considered to be my one super skill – moderating conversations. I was also a big believer in responding to any speech that I disagreed with with counter-speech.
I was so adorable back then. So naive.
I have to pick and choose who and what I invest my time in and myself. And while I am a patient man, I am not Buddha.
|
Now, I’m not saying that’s wrong. I’m saying that sometimes points (1) and (3) above stand in conflict to each other. Sometimes—no matter how much you talk about it and no matter how many ways you come at it, there is a guy who is simply not going to accept that there is such a thing as institutional racism. Or rape culture. There is that woman who answers every patient response with a trolling one, devoid of facts or evidence, but full of truthy Christian feeling.
There is a Jewish parable told on the holiday of Passover, during a ritual called “The Four Questions,” about four sons—the wise, the wicked, the simple, and the one who does not know how to ask—asking about the Jewish people’s exodus from Egypt. According to tradition, those sons are each answered in a different way, based on their different character and perspective.
In an ideal world, I would come at folks like the above with a different tact. Instead of calling them a racist or sexist or a crazy “Second Amendment” person, I would patiently shift the conversation to asking them to consider the lived experiences of others— friends, family members, etc. Ask your black friends about their experiences with police. It could surprise you. Ask your female friends about their experiences with sexual assault. It could surprise you. I firmly believe that’s the path forward.
But sometimes—and more and more it seems during this election season —those attempts are met with the same trolling nonsense. And that is when the Ideal Gas Law goes to shit for me. Because, as I’m slowly learning, my bandwidth is not unlimited. I have to pick and choose who and what I invest my time in and myself. And while I am a patient man, I am not Buddha. And if you’re not dealing in facts and if you’re not open to listening, we’re wasting each others time.
Also. Sometimes people are assholes. They call me names. They insult my religion. They call me a “libtard” or a “cuck.” I’ve decided that just because I’m a liberal doesn’t mean I have to be nice to people who are assholes to me.
Finally, I want to address one thing that Jude said above, and that is that “Conservatives are just liberals who haven’t been educated, enlightened, exposed or convinced.” That’s a nice theory, but I don’t believe that to be true. So sure, I’ll be nice. And I’ll talk to just about anyone. And I will spend a lot of time patiently explaining my beliefs and backing them up with facts. But there are certain folks I’m not going to have the patience or desire to broker peace deals with and I don’t see my role as having to benevolently educate them and convert them to liberalism. I don’t think it works that way.
While I understand that we can’t simply throw all those folks in a giant basket and ship ’em off to sea and that large constructive bi-partisan solutions must be hammered out, I sure as hell am not going to waste my time with them on Facebook.
—
Photo: GettyImages
Ah Liberals, home of -“You have to pass it to find out what is in it” I would love to have an educated argument on the basics of economics and civics with a well read Liberal, I have yet to meet one.
“Ask your black friends about their experiences with police. It could surprise you. Ask your female friends about their experiences with sexual assault. It could surprise you. I firmly believe that’s the path forward.” Probably true because we have nothing else that I can think of. The issue is that the story doesn’t convey full understanding nor does the story teller have full understanding in part because they haven’t experienced life through the way the person they’re interacting with has. I have a friend who’s a police officer. He’s worked in black areas of the city, which also happen to… Read more »
Friendships are voluntary associations. It’s OK to leave them any time for any reason or none at all. Personally, I’n bot the thought police nor have I enjoyed conversations where the only thing the other person was allowed to say was repeating what I just said so for me that wouldn’t work.
Some good points made.
Thanks for reading 🙂
Facebook is clearly overrated, for this reason I do not have a facebook account. I can live without it.
If you really think you need one, refrain from any political comments, use it for nice communication with other family members, exchanging pictures of your holidays with your friends and so on.
Good advise Yahan. That’s the way I wanted my Facebook to be but it hasn’t worked out that way. Although its primary use is for the “warm and fuzzy” stuff, there are times that I have pulled myself into the political arena.I have liberal friends defriended me because of my views so I guess I wasn’t one of their “real” friends as I have never defriended anyone because of theirs.
Censorship through editing, deleting and banning was always a favorite agenda of feminism and other so-called liberal movements. Everything which does not fit the party-line will be removed. As MRA/MGTOW my moderation policy is different, in our forum we keep such opinions which do not agree with us. About Facebook as said, I am not using it. I don’t really discuss much about politics, but just one example I see no reason why Trump is something like the devil and the Clintons are admired like saints. Even here in this moderate GoodMenProject there is not even one thread which is… Read more »
@ Yohan I get your point, but for some people their interests or in fact a large portion of their identities are wrapped up in politics or religion. I grew up in Chicago, which had 2 base ball teams and foot ball teams for that matter. I know some people in southern Illinois, who nay actually follow the St. Louis teams. Should I refrain from telling people I went to a Bears game or discussing the team so I don’t upset the Cardinals fans? I think the onus is on the visitor to the facebook page to keep things civil… Read more »
Social interaction online is actually very closely tied to my area of research and so I appreciate that there are many ways of using Facebook (and other social media), and that those are actually very tied up in individual cultures. That said, there are many studies linking Facebook (and other social media interaction) to meaningful social and societal exchange. There was even a recent study that showed that Facebook interaction is linked to increased longevity. So while I appreciate that such interactions are not for everyone – it’s important not to sell short the importance of online social interaction in… Read more »
I came in expecting to mostly side with Jude, but ended up giving the edge to Mike. All in all I thought both made some good points: Jude recognizing the seductive strength of ideology, and Mike realizing Facebook is a terrible medium for true, informed discussions. I wasn’t too impressed with Jude taking for granted that he’s got the moral high-ground, and just has to be patient to make others see the light.
Thanks for the good discussion, though. I really enjoyed this format of article!!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment and for reading, Chad. I enjoyed this format too! (For more “He said, He said” type articles check out our ‘Sports Exchange’ series of articles in Sports. We’ll have to do more like this…)
Thanks, Chad. I’m glad you read, even if you came to entirely the wrong conclusion. =) Just kidding. I also think Michael makes some very good points. Nevertheless, I think he would agree that, in this election at least, liberalism represents inclusivity, equality, civility, and a host of other social ideals. To me, that is the moral high ground. I do feel bad at failing to have convinced you – but yes, I do think patience is the answer…on both sides.
I agree with Michael. Let’s take an extreme example (and just throw Godwin out the window). Let’s say I discover I’m friends with Adolph Hitler, ca. 1932. Should I smile and patiently explain my position that Jews aren’t in league with Satan and deserve to be gassed, while my “Facebook friend” pounds his Internet podium, typing “Die Juden sind unser ungluck!” over and over? If only some white Liberal male had sat with Hitler in those days, and calmly helped him see the light! I try to be patient, but there has to be a line. I won’t say that… Read more »
I don’t have statistics or research in front of me, but the feeling I’ve gotten over the last few years of digging deeper into to politics, is that the idea that liberals are mostly diplomatic, and conservatives are mostly antagonistic, is a total myth.
In my experience, liberals do tend to be more diplomatic, and to put more value in diplomacy, than conservatives. But there are certainly antagonists of all political flavors.
And I have found the opposite .. I guess it depends on which side of the fence you’re on.
@ Paul Hartzer
What I’ve found is that liberals put a higher regard on feeling while conservatives put a higher regard on truth. I sure that in some cases it will result in liberals appearing more diplomatic, but in others, I’d expect that it would portray conservatives as more diplomatic.
Given what’s happening on Tuesday, this is the wrong week to try to convince me that conservatives are the champions of truth and diplomacy.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the national party associated with Conservativism has chosen an undiplomatic liar as its standard bearer. And even the alternative choice — Gary Johnson — clearly lacks diplomacy skills.
That’s what I’ve found as well
Kinda funny. My facebook friends range from local BLM leaders to local politicians of both parties to extremely conservative gun rights advocates and everything in between. When we talk politics we tend to have decent conversations involving polite discourse. Assholes get swiftly sent to the sidelines. Assholes exist on both sides of the spectrum. If you believe they exist only on the opposite side? Well…
I’ll go one step further and say that we’ve placed too much stock in there being only two sides. We really do need to do something about this dysfunctional two-party system (but we’re not going to).
Civil discussion that leaves little room for asshole-ery sounds pretty fantastic.
Sure does.
I can’t help but feel responsible for this conversation and I’m taking all the credit for this awesome article. Clearly, I’m the best.
Clearly. That is settled.
Agreed.