PC tiranija

Creepy Uncle wrote:Voleo bih da provedem petnaest minuta u glavi nekoga ko misli da bi HuffPost ikada objavio ovakav članak.

Miki wrote:Ne znam, možda je Creepy Uncle bio čak satiričan sa svojom opaskom o 15 minuta i Huff Postu, ali ne bih rekao. 

Mislim, ko malo više prati stvarno majku mu zna da su potpuno ludi. Evo majke mi ne guram sad neku alt right spiku, zadnje čega se konkretno sećam je dete od 10 godina u drag queen autfitu i kepšn uz to "Budućnost je queer".

Utvara wrote:+1
Uopšte me tako nešto ne bi iznenadilo. Apsolutno nije daleko od pameti da HuffPo tako nešto objavi. Nije to neka bogzna kako pouzdana i proverena novina od integriteta sa godinama novinarstva iza sebe nego propagandno glasilo Demokratske partije i njihovih trabanata. Fox News za dobrostojeće progresivne amerikance, čitaju to da bi se bolje osećali.

In my previous life, I was a self-righteous social justice crusader. I would use my mid-sized Twitter and Facebook platforms to signal my wokeness on topics such as LGBT rights, rape culture, and racial injustice. Many of the opinions I held then are still opinions that I hold today. But I now realize that my social-media hyperactivity was, in reality, doing more harm than good.

Within the world created by the various apps I used, I got plenty of shares and retweets. But this masked how ineffective I had become outside, in the real world. The only causes I was actually contributing to were the causes of mobbing and public shaming. Real change does not stem from these tactics. They only cause division, alienation, and bitterness.

How did I become that person? It happened because it was exhilarating. Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts, and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation. The people giving me these stars, hearts, and thumbs-up were engaging in their own cynical game: A fear of being targeted by the mob induces us to signal publicly that we are part of it.

How-To

If you got hiv, say aids. If you a girl,
say you’re pregnant––nobody gonna lower
themselves to listen for the kick. People
passing fast. Splay your legs, cock a knee
funny. It’s the littlest shames they’re likely
to comprehend. Don’t say homeless, they know
you is. What they don’t know is what opens
a wallet, what stops em from counting
what they drop. If you’re young say younger.
Old say older. If you’re crippled don’t
flaunt it. Let em think they’re good enough
Christians to notice. Don’t say you pray,
say you sin. It’s about who they believe
they is. You hardly even there.

Editor’s note: On July 24, 2018, The Nation and its poetry editors, Stephanie Burt and Carmen Giménez Smith, made this statement about the poem below, which contains disparaging and ableist language that has given offense and caused harm to members of several communities:
As poetry editors, we hold ourselves responsible for the ways in which the work we select is received. We made a serious mistake by choosing to publish the poem “How-To.”  We are sorry for the pain we have caused to the many communities affected by this poem. We recognize that we must now earn your trust back.  Some of our readers have asked what we were thinking. When we read the poem we took it as a profane, over-the-top attack on the ways in which members of many groups are asked, or required, to perform the work of marginalization. We can no longer read the poem in that way.


We are currently revising our process for solicited and unsolicited submissions. But more importantly,  we are listening, and we are working. We are grateful for the insightful critiques we have heard, but we know that the onus of change is on us, and we take that responsibility seriously. In the end, this decision means that we need to step back and look at not only our editing process, but at ourselves as editors.

your poem is also ableist & problematic in regards to HIV+ status & so there is more to say than just "oops, sorry I was racist." the harm you caused is multi-faceted.

& we note your use of "eye-opening," we note ableism inherent in (your) language.

— Disabled & Deaf Uprising (@DisDeafUprising) July 26, 2018

(the sort of evidence we look for in these cases), over a period of many years, documenting what he claims to have occurred. And Ronell’s strongest counter-claim — that she can cite emails from Reitman showing him using the same type of erotically charged language that she uses, so this was all consensual and shared and welcome — is undermined by the fact that Reitman cites emails from her where she demands that he use that language, and reprimands him when he fails to do so.

At various points Reitman tried to get out of Ronell’s thrall. When it became clear what her mentorship would require of him, he tried in vain to contact Yale, to see if they would allow him to enroll despite his earlier rejection of their offer. Alas, the head of admissions in the German department was Ronell’s close friend, so Reitman couldn’t pursue that avenue further without risking her finding out and sabotaging his plans. When Reitman reached out to the vice provost at NYU, several times, he came up against the fact that the administrator had come from Ronell’s department. Rather than reporting the incident, as he was legally required to do, the vice provost encouraged Reitman to stay away from Ronell: She was "like a halogen light," the complaint has the vice provost telling Reitman; get too close and you might find yourself "seriously burned."

Unable to escape his adviser, whose reach — like that of many illustrious scholars — extended everywhere, Reitman did what a lot of people do in this situation: He made the best of it. He sucked up, he tried to carve out some space for himself whenever and wherever he could, he tried to preserve the relationship on terms she would find acceptable and he could live with, hoping for the day when he would no longer need her. And through it all, it seems, he continued to believe in her value as an adviser and scholar, and said so. Despite the harassment, in other words, he felt ambivalent about her, not always hostile, sometimes affectionate and well-disposed to her — again, not unlike many people who have been in these positions.

In her various responses to the case, Ronell implies that people on the outside of these relationships don’t understand the shared language, the common assumptions, the culture of queer and camp (and of being Israeli, which both she and Reitman are). As soon as she went there, my antenna went up. It reminded me of communitarians in the 1980s and 1990s, who made similar arguments about local cultures, that people outside of them don’t understand the internal meanings of the specific codes and customs, particularly when those codes and customs are oppressive toward women or gays and lesbians or people of color, that people on the outside don’t understand how differently that oppressiveness might read to someone on the inside. And it also reminded me of Judith Shklar’s admonition to the communitarians: Before you buy the story of shared codes and customs, make sure to hear from the people on the lower rungs, when they are far away from the higher rungs, to see how shared that code truly is.

I have no doubt that Ronell believed, at times, that the language she used was shared. People in positions of power, abusing that power, often believe that. (Reitman cites emails from Ronell suggesting she knew how unwelcome her attention and demands were, but rather than backing off, it only seemed to inspire her to double down on her behavior.) But there is enough evidence cited in his complaint — not post-hoc, manufactured after the fact to justify Reitman’s position now, but emails and voice messages apparently sent at the time — to suggest that it was not shared, that Reitman tried to make that clear, both to Ronell and to others in power, and that, once he discovered that he was on his own, he did what other people in his position often do.