Responded at length there. My tl;dr version is: I think dichroic's framing is problematically privilege-centered, and thus misrepresenting the situation of "dogpiles". You have to have a lot of privilege to start off with for the outrage to be contagion-based and not inherent.
I will also note that I was very close to just passing this by as yet another microaggression that I didn't have the spoons to respond to. I didn't. But I responded because, well, the onus is always on us.
There's no question that I am blinded by my own privilege, much as I try to avoid that. I appreciate your comments.
There is inherent outrage. There are dogpiles that needed to be piled. I just think there are also people who take advantage of those to fan flames, create drama and spread contagion as well. The main point I was trying to make is that it can be hard to form my own opinions, based on my best judgement, whatever facts I can glean, and what I hear from those I trust. (FWIW, you both (sartorias and shweta_narayan) are among that category.)
back to your actual point...shweta_narayanAugust 5 2011, 20:24:58 UTC
...I do totally agree that there's a problem with being outraged because the people in our social group are saying we should be, as opposed to because we've thought about the situation and are actually in fact outraged, rather than feeling-for-social-cohesion.
And your larger point that there's a problem with being anything because the people in our social group are saying we should be.
I'm really not trying to derail from that, it's just, gah, knotty problems :/
I read your post title the wrong way, because I've been feeling slightly outraged that the UK is suffering economic contagion from the Eurozone which (more by luck than judgement) we never actually joined. I think you're talking not about Contagion Outrage, but that very different beast, Outrage Contagion. :)
It's an interesting post, though I think shweta_narayan's objections are valid. I was pondering this subject yesterday, in connection with the story of the feminist sceptic Rebecca Watson, who (as you probably know) made a passing reference in a video blog to a guy who hit on her in an elevator at 4am, after she'd just been talking at a con about how she found that kind of thing bothersome, and found herself at the centre of a mega-shitstorm that included physical threats and all kinds of abuse, and eventually sucked in Richard Dawkins (comment #75), who argued that Western women had no right to complain about anything when women elsewhere were being genitally mutilated. To my own mind there's no doubt where the rights and wrongs of this
( ... )
Well....there really isn't a 'both sides' there. She said something simple and tons of assholes basically freaked out at the mere idea that women had a right to demand consideration for their lives, feelings, and so forth. They made up shit she didn't say, stalked her, threatened her with rape, and tried to get her into real life trouble. None of her supporters came even close to that. You can see similar outrage in the "Shrodinger's Rapist" piece, which is full of enraged comments from men, feeling horribly abused that women have to protect themselves at the cost of a minor ding to some guys' feeling of entitlement and studliness.
Fair point - there is a huge asymmetry there, and though I made it clear where I stood my phrase about "hotheaded interventions of supporters on both sides" kind of undermined that. What I was trying to get at was that even some of her supporters, understandably outraged by the outrage of her opponents, allowed the debate to go way off the point - e.g. on to Watson's looks.
Comments 16
I will also note that I was very close to just passing this by as yet another microaggression that I didn't have the spoons to respond to. I didn't. But I responded because, well, the onus is always on us.
Reply
There is inherent outrage. There are dogpiles that needed to be piled. I just think there are also people who take advantage of those to fan flames, create drama and spread contagion as well. The main point I was trying to make is that it can be hard to form my own opinions, based on my best judgement, whatever facts I can glean, and what I hear from those I trust. (FWIW, you both (sartorias and shweta_narayan) are among that category.)
Reply
But I think the way you're framing it (and phrasing it) is playing into bigger problems, which are, well, problems.
Reply
And your larger point that there's a problem with being anything because the people in our social group are saying we should be.
I'm really not trying to derail from that, it's just, gah, knotty problems :/
Reply
It's an interesting post, though I think shweta_narayan's objections are valid. I was pondering this subject yesterday, in connection with the story of the feminist sceptic Rebecca Watson, who (as you probably know) made a passing reference in a video blog to a guy who hit on her in an elevator at 4am, after she'd just been talking at a con about how she found that kind of thing bothersome, and found herself at the centre of a mega-shitstorm that included physical threats and all kinds of abuse, and eventually sucked in Richard Dawkins (comment #75), who argued that Western women had no right to complain about anything when women elsewhere were being genitally mutilated. To my own mind there's no doubt where the rights and wrongs of this ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment