{"id":19343,"date":"2014-12-29T09:41:29","date_gmt":"2014-12-29T17:41:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=19343"},"modified":"2014-12-29T09:41:29","modified_gmt":"2014-12-29T17:41:29","slug":"being-called-racist-or-sexist-does-not-destroy-people-and-joseph-levines-defense-of-calling-someone-an-awful-human-being","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=19343","title":{"rendered":"Being called racist or sexist does not “destroy” people, and, Joseph Levine’s defense of calling someone an awful human being"},"content":{"rendered":"

On drawing breaks lately, I’ve been leaving comments on Ozy’s blog<\/a>, which I feel a bit guilty about since I’ve been neglecting my own blog. (Leaving comments on someone else’s blog is, somehow, easier and quicker for me than writing posts on my own.)<\/p>\n

Anyway, on a thread over there, “Jiro” wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Because of the tremendous power of an accusation of racism or sexism, you\u2019ve created a tool that anyone not a white male can use to destroy their enemies, and it\u2019s in the nature of an unfair but effective tool that it will be used.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I replied:<\/p>\n

I think your premise \u2013 that \u201can accusation of sexism or racism\u201d is \u201ca tool that anyone not a white male can use to destroy their enemies\u201d \u2013 is a ridiculous exaggeration of reality.<\/p>\n

Look, I\u2019ve had critics suggest that my work is sexist and\/or racist. It happens. It\u2019s not fun. But it didn\u2019t destroy my career or my life, because I\u2019m too obscure for stuff like that to stick to me.<\/p>\n

But the same is true for people who are anything but obscure. A whole bunch of writers \u2013 including some quite prominent and respected writers, like Jay Caspian Kang \u2013 have argued that the hit podcast \u201cSerial\u201d is racist. Yet Serial is getting a second season, and it\u2019s a safe bet that Sarah Koenig\u2019s income and career prospects have improved because of \u201cSerial.\u201d<\/p>\n

The New Yorker called the sitcom \u201c2 Broke Girls\u201d \u201cso racist it is less offensive than baffling,\u201d and that just got renewed for a 4th season.<\/p>\n

I can think of lots of SF\/F novelists who have, fairly or not, been criticized for sexism and\/or racism: Paolo Bacigalupi, NK Jemisin, Saladin Ahmed, Vox Day, Larry Correia, Piers Anthony. In the movie\/TV world, there\u2019s Charlie Sheen, Chris Rock, Alex Balwin, Nicholas Cage, Sean Penn, Woody Allen, Aaron Sorkin\u2026. I could go on and on with examples.<\/p>\n

Your claim that an accusation of sexism or racism is a career-ending weapon, is contradicted by real life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jiro then admitted that they had been hyperbolic, but wrote that <\/p>\n

It creates a system where someone who isn\u2019t a white male can attack any work they don\u2019t like in a way that is much more effective than and will be uncritically accepted by a much wider audience than a normal criticism that doesn\u2019t have the added oomph of accusing something of being racist or sexist.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(Obviously, go read the original thread to read Jiro’s full statements in full context).<\/p>\n

I responded:<\/p>\n

I think there are three factors which are likely to make criticism harmful.<\/p>\n

First, criticism that is so openly disdainful that it sends a clear message that the creator of the work, and anyone who enjoys that work, is an awful, evil person.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, this style of criticism is pretty popular, especially on some areas of the internet.<\/p>\n

Second, people who seek out opportunities to be furious, either because they enjoy righteous indignation, or because they believe it\u2019s politically expedient. So even small slights are interpreted without any charity and treated as major issues. This second factor combines very harmfully with the first factor.<\/p>\n

And third, criticism that would be trivial or even reasonable on its own, but which is amplified by social media into a tsunami of criticism that is usually entirely disproportionate to the original offense. \u201cShirtstorm\u201d is the obvious example.<\/p>\n

Absent these factors, I don\u2019t think that criticism of racism or sexism in a work is especially harmful. And with these factors, even criticism that doesn\u2019t mention racism or sexism can be harmful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Coincidentally, about a half-hour after writing the above, I read an interesting and persuasive defense of calling someone an awful person<\/a>. Philosophy professor Joseph Levine was discussing an infamous tweet<\/a> by Stephen Salaita, in which Salaita wrote:<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s cut to the chase: <\/p>\n

If you\u2019re defending #Israel right now you\u2019re an awful human being.<\/p>\n

11:46 PM \u2013 8 Jul 2014<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This and other tweets<\/a> Salaita wrote made a lot of people mad, and caused a university to yank away a job offer.<\/p>\n

Commenting on Salaita’s tweet, Levine wrote (and this is just a small part, I’d highly recommend reading Levine’s entire article<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Obviously, if Salaita had been tweeting instead about supporters of the 9\/11 attacks as \u201cawful human beings\u201d no one would have been upset.<\/p>\n

I locate the source of my initial ambivalence at precisely this point. While I shared his moral outrage… I balked at taking the next step and severely indicting the character of those who disagreed. I resolved my ambivalence by reasoning my way to the following twofold conclusion regarding the claim in the tweet: The claim itself is not true, but it ought to be, and that is the deeper truth that legitimates the breach of civility.<\/span><\/p>\n

Why isn\u2019t it true? Why doesn\u2019t it follow from supporting morally monstrous actions that one is oneself a moral monster? Because the moral evaluation of character depends not only on what one does but also on the epistemic context in which one does it. In particular, we normally apply what we might call a \u201creasonable person\u201d test. If a reasonable person, given the information available to her, including the evaluative perspectives available to her, could act a certain way, then even if what she does is in fact morally condemnable, that condemnation doesn\u2019t carry over to her character as well.<\/p>\n

By the information available I just mean the obvious \u2014 what she\u2019s likely to know about the facts of the situation. But one brings more than just an opinion about the facts to bear in making a moral evaluation; one evaluates the facts from within a moral perspective, a system of values and a scheme of interpretation of the facts in light of those values. A person does not derive her moral perspective on her own, but develops it over time through her social interaction with parents, teachers, other role models and her wider social circle. This is why we judge racists today much more harshly than those who lived long ago; we expect more today. […]<\/p>\n

But then this brings me to the second part of my answer: It ought to be true<\/em>. Or rather, it ought to have been true<\/em>, and I look forward to the day in which it is true. For if you let individuals off the hook in this case because they pass the reasonable person test, then you have to indict the social-political perspective from which such actions can seem moral and reasonable. No, these people aren\u2019t awful, but what does it say about our society that we can support such [a view] without being awful? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Whether or not you agree with Levine about Israel, Levine’s approach here can be applied to virtually any issue. (Indeed, I have edited Levine’s quote – my edits are marked with ellipses and brackets – to make his argument more “generic,” rather than an argument specifically about Israel.)<\/p>\n

For example, I think that being against marriage equality is a bigoted viewpoint. I don’t think it would be a socially acceptable viewpoint in any society that wasn’t homophobic. But given that people were raised in a homophobic society which taught them lies about lgb people, I can understand that someone can be against marriage equality without being an essentially awful human being.<\/em><\/p>\n

Or a gun rights advocate might say: I think that being against the right to own and bear arms is, in its essence, an anti-liberty position. I don’t think it would be a socially acceptable viewpoint in any society that truly valued liberty. But given that people were raised in our liberal society, in which people are taught lies about guns, and are also taught (falsely) that we can rely on the government to defend us in need, I can understand that someone can be against gun rights without being an essentially awful human being.<\/em><\/p>\n

Levine goes on to argue that incivility may be pragmatically justified:<\/p>\n

Expressing moral outrage in this way \u2014 intentionally breaching civility by refusing to merely engage in calm persuasion \u2014 is itself part of the very process by which social-political perspectives shift. If it ought to have been true that only awful human beings would support this [view], how do we move society toward that point? One way is reasoned argument, no doubt. But it\u2019s also important to exhibit the perspective, and not just argue for it; to adopt the perspective and provocatively manifest how things look from within it. When you do that, something like Salaita\u2019s controversial tweet is likely to come out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Is Levine correct? If some people act like Salaita – that is, if we treat people who disagree about a controversial issue as moral monsters – can that bring positive change about faster? My intuition tells me that Levine may be right, and that a mix of approaches – some civil and logical, some shrill and unforgiving – might create change faster than civility on its own will. If so, that’s not a conclusion that makes me happy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On drawing breaks lately, I’ve been leaving comments on Ozy’s blog, which I feel a bit guilty about since I’ve been neglecting my own blog. (Leaving comments on someone else’s blog is, somehow, easier and quicker for me than writing … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[165,61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19343","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civility-norms-of-discourse","category-palestine-israel"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19343","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19343"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19343\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19344,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19343\/revisions\/19344"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}