"The more I talk about all this, the more I want to make something clear: I have zero interest in lodging a defense against internet call-outs." I gotta be honest: this newsletter definitely read like a defense against internet call-outs, or at least a pretty clear signal that you're verrrry uncomfortable with them. You're sort of framing it as "just asking questions" but I'm not sure the questions are particularly helpful or compassionate right now, at least not for the people who need help and compassion in this moment (Black people). I also think it's good to consider that processing things in public can sometimes be more harmful than you might intend, especially if/when you find yourself saying, "I wonder if I'm just feeling this way because I can identity more with the people doing harm than those being hurt."
That said, if you're going to publicly wring your hands about "call-out culture" and whether or not it's "productive," I think it's incredibly important to at least be really, really clear about who specifically you are talking about (and who you aren't talking about). When you say "when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress"....who is that about? Are you talking about Tammie Teclemariam, who is going after racists at Bon Appetit? Are you talking about the Man Repeller commentariat? Someone else entirely? And who are the people doing call-outs "in good faith" who you feel these unnamed others are being unfair to? What are some examples of "online finger pointing" that you'd say are setting a good example for others to follow — that you approve of, basically? And how are you, personally, deciding what feels performative vs. good faith? (That's not a loaded question, btw — I think it's good for all of us to try to unpack our strong feelings and opinions about other people's behavior and understand why, exactly, it rubs us the wrong way.)
Basically: without specific examples for readers to go look at and read more about on our own, it's not possible for the reader to consider what you're saying and make up their own mind, to engage in a real discussion about it, or to substantively disagree with you.
As a Black queer woman who seriously side eyes Chapo Trap House, I get the distinct sensation that this newsletter isn't really *for* me (especially after reading the comments) which, of course, is fine. But since you said you're committed to showing up for and listening to the people who are harmed, I thought I'd offer my two cents.
Hi. I appreciate you reading and offering your perspective in good faith (which I think of as a comment that doesn’t employ fallacies like purposeful misunderstanding/strawman arguments, taking things out of context, wielding thought-terminating cliches). I think you make a fair point that without being specific, I run the risk of offering counter-productive arguments to people I don’t agree with. I think this is what makes the internet really tricky—if you challenge bad actors in a movement, you end up sounding like those criticizing the movement. I think this is probably why things start to feel really polarizing online: nuance often comes off the wrong way, so ultimately you have to choose sides. But that’s also the very quality of internet discourse that I’m finding reductive (or harmful to inspiring qualitative change), so by writing this I guess I was also challenging myself to see if I could overcome that binary. It seems I succeeded in some ways and failed in some ways. I’ll keep trying!
I decided not to name names or offer specific examples because I wanted to explore the complexity of social media as a medium for activist dialogue without wading into the specifics, which I see as part of what’s causing conflict. But I definitely made some assumptions about my subscribers to do that safely, and I made those based on the political views I’ve stated prior and the comments I’ve gotten in response to those. It’s possible that avoiding examples made my point too open for interpretation though, so to be clear: I support many of the criticisms MR has gotten (and fought for them myself while I worked there, before ultimately deciding I was too at odds with the brand’s ethos to stay), and I also support the staff at Bon Appetit who have spoken out. Many of the people I think have taken up the call-out mantle unproductively have actually been white.
I do have my doubts about how call-outs tend to metabolize online (at no fault of the victims), which is that someone is exiled for a bit while nothing changes about the material conditions that led to harm being inflicted. Not unrelated is that fact that I think we all find something satisfying about socially exiling people we don’t like, and sometimes I think that [very human] pleasure takes precedence over genuinely acknowledging and rectifying the harm done to vulnerable people. This is why I think direct action that attacks systemic issues or helps those in need (protesting, phone-banking, volunteering, donating, providing communal support, etc) could use some of the impassioned energy that people are bringing to parsing captions.
All this said, I totally understand how this newsletter in a vacuum seems like I’m spending more energy on criticizing social media activism than acknowledging those who need our compassion, and all I can say to that is I hope my work can make room for both (and I think it has). Not only because I think these two things are linked, but because the internet is all we have right now, and I’m obsessed with figuring out why nothing seems to change even when so many people want it to. Thank you again for commenting. You made some really fair points and I’ll continue to consider them.
I'll grant you she's a little vague, I actually didn't assume most of this was about MR.
Here's the thing though - you're not the first Black person, or queer person in this thread. Now, i've resorted to announcing "I'm nonbinary" to people when they're coming out with a bunch of terf shit or just trying to teach me gender studies 101 as I've stepped out of line, or just in circumstances where I want them to shut up fast. And I hate doing that, even though it's true. You see the spines retract and vanish and people start apologising - it sucks and feels humiliating for both of us. Plus that doesn't wholly define what my opinion might be. Like, I'm sure there are some right shitheads out there who are nonbinary who I have nothing in common with. Then in most political activism I've been involved with, it's intensely irritating when a bunch of white dudebros are wailing and gnashing their teeth because they're privileged, and that's all they want to talk about. Or take feminist allies - a whole trail of dudes who found out last week that women don't like being raped, and that's all they want to talk about. And statistically they tend to turn out to be creeps, more often than not. So, what's the specific interest in cringeing white people shitting their pants and catching fire? I'm curious.
For the rest, you're making some rather sweeping assumptions about Haley sympathising with people who are doing harm against those receiving harm.
Just want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with this comment, and just wanted to add a few additional thoughts.
"So when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress, the effort feels at odds with the broader movement, which actually seeks to move away from punitive measures to change behavior."
This feels like a bit of a bad faith argument, no? The punitive measures we're seeking to move away from stem from a carceral, police state. No one (as far as I know?) is calling for the abolition of HR departments or moving away from holding people accountable for their racist/misogynist/homophobic/transphobic behavior. I'm assuming best intent here, but I think it's important to highlight the fact that this specific newsletter is centering people in power (typically cis, straight, white people who are being held accountable/facing consequences for their discriminatory behavior, not "being canceled"). Haley's concern seems to lie with whether or not this is fair, as opposed to whether or not Black/POC/queer people are being harmed.
The connection I meant to make there was that abolition (as I understand it) is about fighting for a society where justice is sought out through a) providing adequate resources to communities so that wrongdoing doesn't happen in the first place, b) focusing on genuinely helping victims rather than simply punishing those who wronged them, and c) holding wrongdoers to account through rehabilitative efforts versus exiling them. I think this framework can be applied to society as a whole, but I can see how that came across as me saying online call-outs shouldn't happen. I definitely don't think that, and that misunderstanding is on me for not being clear enough. (Although I do think HR departments need to be rethought because currently they only exist to protect those in power.)
Who is she talking about ? Basic common sense will tell you, don’t pretend you don’t understand this newsletter please. And yes the Man Repeller commenters are an excellent example, see it wasn’t that complicated.
Hey there! I'm curious as to why you're responding with such hostility to a perfectly reasonable question? The language Haley uses is vague, and to the comment above's point, there have been multiple instances over the last few weeks in which media companies/brands have to had to reckon with their racist histories (Man Repeller, Conde Nast, BuzzFeed, Complex, etc). If common sense tells us Haley is talking about Man Repeller, I wonder why she didn't simply name Man Repeller.
It's also extremely telling that you've chosen to shout down the first self-identified Black, queer woman who has chosen to engage in a good faith conversation here. Antiracist work asks us to sit with our own discomfort, I would encourage you to do the same.
I don’t think she only meant MR, probably other things too. Can’t speak for H but personally another example of reactions I found idiotic were the reactions to the brand Girlfriend’s post. They tried hard to come clean, to move forward, to show real efforts of progress, and still this 14 employees small brand got tore down in the comments. It’s so petty, it’s not productive, it’s not activism, it’s not helping the cause: this is just enjoying finger pointing, and being petty.
Bon Appétit on the other hand needed to be called out :)
It would take ages to name which call outs were fair and which were stupid bullying. Hence my comment about basic common sense.
It is okay to question Call out culture. Doesn’t make us allies to racist institutions i think.
Again, I'm asking you to sit with your discomfort and really listen to the comment you responded so defensively to: "I also think it's good to consider that processing things in public can sometimes be more harmful than you might intend."
Please remember that when white, cis, straight people have public conversations about the right/wrong way to hold abusers accountable, it sends a clear message that they are not thinking first and foremost about the people being harmed. It's a privilege to get to engage in these types of academic/hypothetical conversations as opposed to having to worry about your own safety/job security. We're also wading into DARVO territory: "DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender." If you are committed to being an ally/accomplice (which I suspect you are), I hope you'll take this to heart.
That Jen Pan article, and the Chapo Trap House episode she was on, were both really good, and I'm not usually a huge Chapo fan.
Over the years, I've been disconcerted by how politically significant moments, reckonings with respect to racism or other struggles, turn into this kind of identitarian punitive thing. I've been in the position before of rightfully calling out bigotry, only to find myself going round calling everything and everyone "white". If we're talking about the reckoning in women's media and - not to name a specific publication - MR, I feel uncomfortable calling that team "white": Leandra is not white, several members of the leadership team are not white, some of them I have no clue whether they are or not. It doesn't make it any less true or abhorrent that they had unpaid interns, that a bunch of former employees had a terrible time there, that they fired a bunch of POC at the start of the covid pandemic, that all the Black queer writers seem to have left strikingly quickly. But does that mean you have to call a South Asian and a Middle-Eastern woman not only white but "incredibly white"? Does it mean you have to get scarily personal about a specific member of the team ? Does that mean she's beyond redemption and if she tries to do better or apologise she's just doing "white fragility"? Is she caught in an endless loop of wincing, crying and self-flagellating? Does that really help anyone? The discussion around MR is, of course, just an example of the broader trend. Plus, the problem is with fashion media as a whole, and with fashion in general. It's good that people are finally admitting that it's all a bit gross: fashion, consumerism, being filthy rich, celebrity culture, and so on. Not so good if it's providing cover for people to let loose their personal bigotries or paranoias.
There's an interesting tension at work, also, between a diversity and representation issue, and a material one, as if the former is being deployed to derail the latter one that also involves racism, and also disproportionately affects people of color. In fact the former is weird - people pledging to support and consume music, literature, etc. by people of color, trans people, etc. as if that's a chore you do once a year or, like, once a historic anti-racist reckoning. If you're not reading James Baldwin or Frantz Fanon, what the hell are you even reading, you know?
Haley, I’m back because I can’t stop thinking about this part: “I agree that impact is always more important than intention, especially when it comes to laws and policies, but I don’t think it’s completely irrelevant where interpersonal dynamics are concerned. So when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress, the effort feels at odds with the broader movement, which actually seeks to move away from punitive measures to change behavior....Online finger-pointing seems most politically useful when it’s part of a broader effort to contextualize and dismantle systemic injustice. Otherwise it feels reminiscent of a neoliberal paradigm whereby individual choices are given more attention than the structural constraints that lead to them."
I’m obsessed with the concept of choice and personal agency (specifically, how little of
it we actually have). I think, ultimately, whenever you are looking to hold people accountable, you’re attempting a very delicate task that deserves to be given more thought than it generally is. The way I see it, this way of thinking isn’t confined to the current era, or as you put it, “the neoliberal paradigm” (although neoliberalism has exacerbated its consequences by narrowing our margin of agency over our lives). I think, in order to function as a society, we had to “create” the flawed construct of personal responsibility, whereby anyone over a certain age is considered fully responsible for their actions and the consequences of those actions. The problem with this idea is, while it’s very useful to establish a judicial system, it doesn’t hold much water philosophically. At the very least, it’s not perfect, precisely because it doesn’t take into consideration the millions of factors that influence our every move. Some of these factors are fairly easy to identify (though the manner and extent to which they influence every person’s life isn’t): race, class, gender, sexual orientation...But it’s a mistake to forget that a) there’s no way to know how these factors influence every specific individual b) there are millions of other factors that influence our circumstances and by extension our actions. Intelligence is genetics + opportunity. I’d argue even kindness (which is always perceived as something we “choose”) is more likely to be the result of having often been on the other end of kind acts. Chance has so much to do with the trajectory of our lives it will make you dizzy if you really think about it (or if you’re like me it will give you an anxiety attack). If you keep this in mind when judging someone, it’s hard to believe very strongly in the idea of personal responsibility. The problem is, of course, we still need to hold people accountable, because their actions can (and do) harm others. But that’s also, I believe, why any justice system (be it run by a government or a Twitter mob) should be, as you argued, less about punitive measures than it is about pushing for change. Punishment can be a necessary means, but it should never be the end. At the end of the day, individuals have a lot less “choice” than we want to believe, our actions are determined by systems much broader than ourselves. I think realizing this generally helps people (it’s certainly helped me) be kinder to themselves and to others
Man.... you just kind’ve nailed every thought I’ve had over the last few weeks. But articulated it so it was...coherent? Damn. Thank you for the newsletter. It has been the highlight of my Sundays. I hope that doesn’t sound sad.
Also, I’ve checked out (as a test to my waning attention span) some of the articles you have suggested and I have yet to be disappointed. Your taste!
I am awestruck at how hard this hits home and how well crafted it is. I started adoring your writing a few years ago when you articulated all of my banal thoughts and anxieties about being a twenty something. I am so pleased to see that years later as my thoughts and anxieties shift to more complex and larger topics, you are with me, still putting my confused gut-impulses and jumbled feelings into words. It’s a gift, Haley, that you have given me!
Similarly to fellow commenter Serene Eighteen, I am also obsessed with personal agency and how to shift social structures to encourage more of it for every individual. I am in the design field, and did my graduate thesis on how workplace design could encourage choice, which leads to feelings of control over the environment, and therefore encourages self-efficacy.
Re: your question about what I’m excited about right now... I’m excited about groups that are actively visioning and building agency and ways those agents can live in “right relationship with our ecosystems,“ as stated by Black Visions Collective. I’m also excited by the Reparations Summer called for by Black Land & Liberation.
I would love to funnel resources to groups such as these as well as continue to explore how architecture & design can provide a foundation for “living in right relationship”
Thank you for continuing to write for us, I always click on the links.
A funny ladies podcast I listen to also recently threatened to stop production because they are white (they got over the urge to be quiet as quickly as you did). Was it a true threat? I don’t know but I understand the feeling and I am relieved to not lose any intelligent women from my virtual life. I value your opinion and if you continue to promote the voices of minorities I will keep reading.
So much of the stuff I usually read is totally taken over by just all the same stuff and, yeah it's important and I largely agree with it, but it's like people are treating their own usual contribution as worthless, which it totally isn't. That's calmed down a bit now and personalities are re-emerging. And passing on information and funding is one thing and incredibly important. But in what way is what people create less important than, like, memes about Trump being just a bit of a ninny, or relaying his latest terrible pun? There's a reason why authoritarian regimes come for artists and intellectuals first, after all. I guess social media and late capitalism make that unnecessary.
Pom Poko and Only Yesterday are probably my favourite Ghibli movies, I skew heavily towards Isao Takahata. Though huge soft spot for Porco Rosso, as well.
your writing articulates what I have sat on for some time. thank you for laying out your exploration and critiques. I wish I had more crucial dialogue to share, but I wanted to offer a comment re: #8. it depends on the dictionary company, but definitions are listed by their chronological usage rather than how commonly they're used (see Merriam-Webster vs. New Oxford American). also interesting that most dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, so definitions are only published after they've been in use and recorded in language for some time already (though I admittedly have never used or seen the elf usage before??). I read about this in Kory Stamper's book "Word by Word," which I would absolutely recommend for a sarcastically entertaining non-fiction experience.
This is great, Haley. I’ve been feeling frozen and sad and frustrated, and I haven’t been able to put any of my thoughts into words, so this was helpful. I’ve found myself rolling my eyes at people who I consider to be allies and communities that I’m a part of on more than one occasion in the past few weeks, then immediately feeling guilty about not having my priorities straight. I’ve had to remind myself that this is a difficult time and feeling complicated emotions as a result is to be expected. For what it’s worth, I’m a woman of color, so I doubt it’s just because you’re white.
Interesting thoughts -- thanks for sharing. I don't believe 'call out' culture is helpful unless the call out is done in a way that offers genuine room for education, reflection and growth. I see some of that, but also some shaming which does seem divisive, as you said, among people who have the same goals. The consequence is that social media has become fraught: any well-meaning post, or even a post about a big life milestone, can be taken the wrong way or seen as inappropriate. Thoughts about this vary so there's no sense of 'right'/'wrong.' And I struggle with this piece particularly: anything posted online is by definition, performative, part of building one's public identity (I think we can all agree, no matter how casual we are about SM, that this is part of what we do there, whether intentionally or not). So perhaps, by definition, unhelpful? And the other piece is that what will never be visible online is the real work, whether you're investigating personal biases, talking to family, advocating for change in your work place, making donations... so why are we basing so much-- even rewriting our perceptions of friends-- off of what IS visible? (Huge disclaimer that of course this applies only to genuine allies and progressives who are working/thinking seriously to become anti-racist, not to the apathetic or conservatives).
Oh boy. I think it comes down to something super simple for me: tone policing. Insinuating to people that the way they've held their oppressor accountable is too messy, chaotic, uncomfortable, harsh, or punitive is just tone policing. Over the weekend, I listened to a podcast that brought up tone policing as something white people should *never* do to Black and Brown people, but *must* do to themselves in conversation with other white people to bring them into these discussions and this movement. When you worry about turning people away from this conversation, you need to understand that this conversation is centuries old, and in the face of trauma and brutalization, we cannot tone police the most impacted people. Instead, we must collect our own people and bring them to this conversation, through the door that is (graciously, miraculously) still open for them to pass through and into collective liberation. We are living through an extraordinary moment, but there is no time for white fragility here.
I don't think she's talking about people holding their oppressor accountable though, more people who come off the back of that. It was obvious at MR : people who weren't either former employees who had a bad time, or Black or queer or just plain poor people feeling alienated by the content, but people who just drift to where people are down and throw in a few extra kicks.
Plus why are we using the title of a book by a white lady who makes money off racism, specifically by making Amazon warehouse workers go to sensitivity training? Let's face it, she wants everyone to keep being racist or she's out of a job.
Agreed that the MR comment section was out of hand and that the personal slights there were shocking. But thats a distinction that could have been made in the newsletter! As far as the white fragility comment: sure. But oftentimes white people need to hear it from other white people, which is an expression of how white supremacy has ordered our society. Hopefully everyone scarfing down DiAngelo turns to Baldwin and Davis next. I've seen the phrase and concept be useful to people in my life.
Would you be more receptive if I, as a woman of color, expressed my unease with the way some things are being handled within certain progressive circles? The problem with your reasoning is that it poses no limits. As long as you can claim your community has been historically abused, feel free to be as unfair and vengeful as you want to be, because you “earned” it. And you mention the “conversation”...I think the problem Haley is pointing out is that some people are being banned from the conversation altogether, whether they double down, apologize, defend themselves or any other reaction they may have. I’m all for making reparations, but ultimately these are real people, and most of them are not monsters beyond hope. A lot of them, ultimately, are products of their environment, like we all are. They were probably not smart or brave or virtuous enough to question their role in systemic oppression but it’s not like they woke up every day setting out to hurt a minority. The truth is, if I were born a white person in America, who knows if I wouldn’t have done or said things I’d end up regretting
I'm a WOC who is white presenting and often (but not always) read as white, so I've taken up a role as the "cultural mediary" to white peers in discussions about race, in which I tone police myself quite a bit because of the reasons you outlined above - people do need the grace necessary to make real personal changes, as they are not, as you said "monsters beyond hope". What I'm saying is that there is a difference between people in that role, and people who have been personally and systemically disenfranchised and oppressed. And the cultural discourse needs to move beyond niceties to make progress. Everyone has the right to be comfortable or uncomfortable with different things, but it's important to be critical. Also, as far as people being banned from the conversation, we need to acknowledge that not everyone enters the conversation at the same point in their journey or education. It's ok to do some learning on your own or in community with others at a similar stage to you before entering the larger conversation. I see nothing wrong with that, as it encourages personal growth that is true and not performative, and alleviates others the emotional labor of educating you...I guess my qualm is why we think that people who are being called out deserve so much grace, and the ones doing the calling out do not, and should cushion and package their message for easy delivery. I agree that the social media pile on isn't always productive, but again: it's not my job to police someone elses tone, experience, or expression of that experience. Same for Haley! This is a comment section, not a jury.
Eric Weinstein calls this line of thought, the more you've been wronged (or claimed to be wronged) the more right you are, because no one can challenge (or allegedly ever ever understand) the plight you have been through. So the less identity intersectional traits one has, the less they have a say in the conversation.
I've also arrived to a very similar vocabulary, while thinking about social media. I've come to see it as shades of panopticon, surveillance, behaviorally affecting and incentivizing people to heights of delusion (particularly re: influence and action). Your little note on autological words though is very intriguing, particularly re: tone policing. I wonder how much of my disdain falls under a kind of self-assuaging performance...It's difficult to parse how deep the infiltration goes.
I also find it disappointing to see how popular "critical" discourse (esp. on social media) is satisfied and sedated by reductive urban legends in the guise of rigorous theory. For example, the (punitive) behaviors and (oversimplified) ethics that people enact still allow for unobserved racecraft to thrive: the racism has metastasized.
I've been disturbed by, say, those who will claim they are for restorative justice, but are heavily didactic in their personal ethics. There's a heavy-handed fixation with the individual (and weirdly, it often becomes a metaphysical obsession with a person's interiority and soul). Or the ways the culture demands for purity tests in regressive, reactive (puritanical, calvinian) ways. Policing.
One little glimmer of hope I see in all this though, is my understanding that people are trying to develop a “new” social ethics, a new vocabulary, by which we can reach, hopefully, equity and thriving. Of course, I see a lot of pretense that in fact re-entrenches tired and familiar oppressions, or a fixation on gaining the upper hand on what is essentially mutable: norms (See: Overton window).
By the way, I thoroughly enjoy the hyperlinks and bullet points of what you have been reading. Perhaps I am the few who do click through them. Please continue to do so! It has diversified my media consumption for the better!
Haley! Have you read Trick Mirror? I just started it and Jia touches upon some of the “examined life” and social media, among other topics. I’ve found it to be the additional conversation I need, as I read it. Thank you as always for these newsletters and your honesty and writing is always appreciated. THANK YOU!
I was a linguistics major so I'm loving the shout out to autological words and the Kafka trap! I'm also into my sudden realization/spin off mental meme that your name could be the call and response of a stoner avoiding someone looking for them at a party.
Person A: "I think that's them..Haley! Hey, over here, Haley! *squeezes awkwardly across the crowded room and taps Person B on shoulder* Haley?" Person B: *turns slowly, looks Person A up and down* Nah man. *immediately turns back around and continues conversation with others*.
"The more I talk about all this, the more I want to make something clear: I have zero interest in lodging a defense against internet call-outs." I gotta be honest: this newsletter definitely read like a defense against internet call-outs, or at least a pretty clear signal that you're verrrry uncomfortable with them. You're sort of framing it as "just asking questions" but I'm not sure the questions are particularly helpful or compassionate right now, at least not for the people who need help and compassion in this moment (Black people). I also think it's good to consider that processing things in public can sometimes be more harmful than you might intend, especially if/when you find yourself saying, "I wonder if I'm just feeling this way because I can identity more with the people doing harm than those being hurt."
That said, if you're going to publicly wring your hands about "call-out culture" and whether or not it's "productive," I think it's incredibly important to at least be really, really clear about who specifically you are talking about (and who you aren't talking about). When you say "when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress"....who is that about? Are you talking about Tammie Teclemariam, who is going after racists at Bon Appetit? Are you talking about the Man Repeller commentariat? Someone else entirely? And who are the people doing call-outs "in good faith" who you feel these unnamed others are being unfair to? What are some examples of "online finger pointing" that you'd say are setting a good example for others to follow — that you approve of, basically? And how are you, personally, deciding what feels performative vs. good faith? (That's not a loaded question, btw — I think it's good for all of us to try to unpack our strong feelings and opinions about other people's behavior and understand why, exactly, it rubs us the wrong way.)
Basically: without specific examples for readers to go look at and read more about on our own, it's not possible for the reader to consider what you're saying and make up their own mind, to engage in a real discussion about it, or to substantively disagree with you.
As a Black queer woman who seriously side eyes Chapo Trap House, I get the distinct sensation that this newsletter isn't really *for* me (especially after reading the comments) which, of course, is fine. But since you said you're committed to showing up for and listening to the people who are harmed, I thought I'd offer my two cents.
Hi. I appreciate you reading and offering your perspective in good faith (which I think of as a comment that doesn’t employ fallacies like purposeful misunderstanding/strawman arguments, taking things out of context, wielding thought-terminating cliches). I think you make a fair point that without being specific, I run the risk of offering counter-productive arguments to people I don’t agree with. I think this is what makes the internet really tricky—if you challenge bad actors in a movement, you end up sounding like those criticizing the movement. I think this is probably why things start to feel really polarizing online: nuance often comes off the wrong way, so ultimately you have to choose sides. But that’s also the very quality of internet discourse that I’m finding reductive (or harmful to inspiring qualitative change), so by writing this I guess I was also challenging myself to see if I could overcome that binary. It seems I succeeded in some ways and failed in some ways. I’ll keep trying!
I decided not to name names or offer specific examples because I wanted to explore the complexity of social media as a medium for activist dialogue without wading into the specifics, which I see as part of what’s causing conflict. But I definitely made some assumptions about my subscribers to do that safely, and I made those based on the political views I’ve stated prior and the comments I’ve gotten in response to those. It’s possible that avoiding examples made my point too open for interpretation though, so to be clear: I support many of the criticisms MR has gotten (and fought for them myself while I worked there, before ultimately deciding I was too at odds with the brand’s ethos to stay), and I also support the staff at Bon Appetit who have spoken out. Many of the people I think have taken up the call-out mantle unproductively have actually been white.
I do have my doubts about how call-outs tend to metabolize online (at no fault of the victims), which is that someone is exiled for a bit while nothing changes about the material conditions that led to harm being inflicted. Not unrelated is that fact that I think we all find something satisfying about socially exiling people we don’t like, and sometimes I think that [very human] pleasure takes precedence over genuinely acknowledging and rectifying the harm done to vulnerable people. This is why I think direct action that attacks systemic issues or helps those in need (protesting, phone-banking, volunteering, donating, providing communal support, etc) could use some of the impassioned energy that people are bringing to parsing captions.
All this said, I totally understand how this newsletter in a vacuum seems like I’m spending more energy on criticizing social media activism than acknowledging those who need our compassion, and all I can say to that is I hope my work can make room for both (and I think it has). Not only because I think these two things are linked, but because the internet is all we have right now, and I’m obsessed with figuring out why nothing seems to change even when so many people want it to. Thank you again for commenting. You made some really fair points and I’ll continue to consider them.
I'll grant you she's a little vague, I actually didn't assume most of this was about MR.
Here's the thing though - you're not the first Black person, or queer person in this thread. Now, i've resorted to announcing "I'm nonbinary" to people when they're coming out with a bunch of terf shit or just trying to teach me gender studies 101 as I've stepped out of line, or just in circumstances where I want them to shut up fast. And I hate doing that, even though it's true. You see the spines retract and vanish and people start apologising - it sucks and feels humiliating for both of us. Plus that doesn't wholly define what my opinion might be. Like, I'm sure there are some right shitheads out there who are nonbinary who I have nothing in common with. Then in most political activism I've been involved with, it's intensely irritating when a bunch of white dudebros are wailing and gnashing their teeth because they're privileged, and that's all they want to talk about. Or take feminist allies - a whole trail of dudes who found out last week that women don't like being raped, and that's all they want to talk about. And statistically they tend to turn out to be creeps, more often than not. So, what's the specific interest in cringeing white people shitting their pants and catching fire? I'm curious.
For the rest, you're making some rather sweeping assumptions about Haley sympathising with people who are doing harm against those receiving harm.
Just want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with this comment, and just wanted to add a few additional thoughts.
"So when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress, the effort feels at odds with the broader movement, which actually seeks to move away from punitive measures to change behavior."
This feels like a bit of a bad faith argument, no? The punitive measures we're seeking to move away from stem from a carceral, police state. No one (as far as I know?) is calling for the abolition of HR departments or moving away from holding people accountable for their racist/misogynist/homophobic/transphobic behavior. I'm assuming best intent here, but I think it's important to highlight the fact that this specific newsletter is centering people in power (typically cis, straight, white people who are being held accountable/facing consequences for their discriminatory behavior, not "being canceled"). Haley's concern seems to lie with whether or not this is fair, as opposed to whether or not Black/POC/queer people are being harmed.
The connection I meant to make there was that abolition (as I understand it) is about fighting for a society where justice is sought out through a) providing adequate resources to communities so that wrongdoing doesn't happen in the first place, b) focusing on genuinely helping victims rather than simply punishing those who wronged them, and c) holding wrongdoers to account through rehabilitative efforts versus exiling them. I think this framework can be applied to society as a whole, but I can see how that came across as me saying online call-outs shouldn't happen. I definitely don't think that, and that misunderstanding is on me for not being clear enough. (Although I do think HR departments need to be rethought because currently they only exist to protect those in power.)
Thanks for this response! I agree with your vision of rehabilitative justice and need to rethink HR - and indeed, redistribute power.
Who is she talking about ? Basic common sense will tell you, don’t pretend you don’t understand this newsletter please. And yes the Man Repeller commenters are an excellent example, see it wasn’t that complicated.
Hey there! I'm curious as to why you're responding with such hostility to a perfectly reasonable question? The language Haley uses is vague, and to the comment above's point, there have been multiple instances over the last few weeks in which media companies/brands have to had to reckon with their racist histories (Man Repeller, Conde Nast, BuzzFeed, Complex, etc). If common sense tells us Haley is talking about Man Repeller, I wonder why she didn't simply name Man Repeller.
It's also extremely telling that you've chosen to shout down the first self-identified Black, queer woman who has chosen to engage in a good faith conversation here. Antiracist work asks us to sit with our own discomfort, I would encourage you to do the same.
Hey there !
I don’t think she only meant MR, probably other things too. Can’t speak for H but personally another example of reactions I found idiotic were the reactions to the brand Girlfriend’s post. They tried hard to come clean, to move forward, to show real efforts of progress, and still this 14 employees small brand got tore down in the comments. It’s so petty, it’s not productive, it’s not activism, it’s not helping the cause: this is just enjoying finger pointing, and being petty.
Bon Appétit on the other hand needed to be called out :)
It would take ages to name which call outs were fair and which were stupid bullying. Hence my comment about basic common sense.
It is okay to question Call out culture. Doesn’t make us allies to racist institutions i think.
Again, I'm asking you to sit with your discomfort and really listen to the comment you responded so defensively to: "I also think it's good to consider that processing things in public can sometimes be more harmful than you might intend."
Please remember that when white, cis, straight people have public conversations about the right/wrong way to hold abusers accountable, it sends a clear message that they are not thinking first and foremost about the people being harmed. It's a privilege to get to engage in these types of academic/hypothetical conversations as opposed to having to worry about your own safety/job security. We're also wading into DARVO territory: "DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender." If you are committed to being an ally/accomplice (which I suspect you are), I hope you'll take this to heart.
My comment would have been as upset-sounding if it were directed to a cis white person, but you already made up your mind.
That Jen Pan article, and the Chapo Trap House episode she was on, were both really good, and I'm not usually a huge Chapo fan.
Over the years, I've been disconcerted by how politically significant moments, reckonings with respect to racism or other struggles, turn into this kind of identitarian punitive thing. I've been in the position before of rightfully calling out bigotry, only to find myself going round calling everything and everyone "white". If we're talking about the reckoning in women's media and - not to name a specific publication - MR, I feel uncomfortable calling that team "white": Leandra is not white, several members of the leadership team are not white, some of them I have no clue whether they are or not. It doesn't make it any less true or abhorrent that they had unpaid interns, that a bunch of former employees had a terrible time there, that they fired a bunch of POC at the start of the covid pandemic, that all the Black queer writers seem to have left strikingly quickly. But does that mean you have to call a South Asian and a Middle-Eastern woman not only white but "incredibly white"? Does it mean you have to get scarily personal about a specific member of the team ? Does that mean she's beyond redemption and if she tries to do better or apologise she's just doing "white fragility"? Is she caught in an endless loop of wincing, crying and self-flagellating? Does that really help anyone? The discussion around MR is, of course, just an example of the broader trend. Plus, the problem is with fashion media as a whole, and with fashion in general. It's good that people are finally admitting that it's all a bit gross: fashion, consumerism, being filthy rich, celebrity culture, and so on. Not so good if it's providing cover for people to let loose their personal bigotries or paranoias.
There's an interesting tension at work, also, between a diversity and representation issue, and a material one, as if the former is being deployed to derail the latter one that also involves racism, and also disproportionately affects people of color. In fact the former is weird - people pledging to support and consume music, literature, etc. by people of color, trans people, etc. as if that's a chore you do once a year or, like, once a historic anti-racist reckoning. If you're not reading James Baldwin or Frantz Fanon, what the hell are you even reading, you know?
yes.
Question for Dear Baby: How do you square your own consumerism (especially around clothing) with your critiques of late capitalism?
Haley, I’m back because I can’t stop thinking about this part: “I agree that impact is always more important than intention, especially when it comes to laws and policies, but I don’t think it’s completely irrelevant where interpersonal dynamics are concerned. So when the pile-on starts to feel purely punitive, co-opted by people who appear to be more concerned with inflicting social exile than progress, the effort feels at odds with the broader movement, which actually seeks to move away from punitive measures to change behavior....Online finger-pointing seems most politically useful when it’s part of a broader effort to contextualize and dismantle systemic injustice. Otherwise it feels reminiscent of a neoliberal paradigm whereby individual choices are given more attention than the structural constraints that lead to them."
I’m obsessed with the concept of choice and personal agency (specifically, how little of
it we actually have). I think, ultimately, whenever you are looking to hold people accountable, you’re attempting a very delicate task that deserves to be given more thought than it generally is. The way I see it, this way of thinking isn’t confined to the current era, or as you put it, “the neoliberal paradigm” (although neoliberalism has exacerbated its consequences by narrowing our margin of agency over our lives). I think, in order to function as a society, we had to “create” the flawed construct of personal responsibility, whereby anyone over a certain age is considered fully responsible for their actions and the consequences of those actions. The problem with this idea is, while it’s very useful to establish a judicial system, it doesn’t hold much water philosophically. At the very least, it’s not perfect, precisely because it doesn’t take into consideration the millions of factors that influence our every move. Some of these factors are fairly easy to identify (though the manner and extent to which they influence every person’s life isn’t): race, class, gender, sexual orientation...But it’s a mistake to forget that a) there’s no way to know how these factors influence every specific individual b) there are millions of other factors that influence our circumstances and by extension our actions. Intelligence is genetics + opportunity. I’d argue even kindness (which is always perceived as something we “choose”) is more likely to be the result of having often been on the other end of kind acts. Chance has so much to do with the trajectory of our lives it will make you dizzy if you really think about it (or if you’re like me it will give you an anxiety attack). If you keep this in mind when judging someone, it’s hard to believe very strongly in the idea of personal responsibility. The problem is, of course, we still need to hold people accountable, because their actions can (and do) harm others. But that’s also, I believe, why any justice system (be it run by a government or a Twitter mob) should be, as you argued, less about punitive measures than it is about pushing for change. Punishment can be a necessary means, but it should never be the end. At the end of the day, individuals have a lot less “choice” than we want to believe, our actions are determined by systems much broader than ourselves. I think realizing this generally helps people (it’s certainly helped me) be kinder to themselves and to others
Man.... you just kind’ve nailed every thought I’ve had over the last few weeks. But articulated it so it was...coherent? Damn. Thank you for the newsletter. It has been the highlight of my Sundays. I hope that doesn’t sound sad.
Also, I’ve checked out (as a test to my waning attention span) some of the articles you have suggested and I have yet to be disappointed. Your taste!
I am awestruck at how hard this hits home and how well crafted it is. I started adoring your writing a few years ago when you articulated all of my banal thoughts and anxieties about being a twenty something. I am so pleased to see that years later as my thoughts and anxieties shift to more complex and larger topics, you are with me, still putting my confused gut-impulses and jumbled feelings into words. It’s a gift, Haley, that you have given me!
Similarly to fellow commenter Serene Eighteen, I am also obsessed with personal agency and how to shift social structures to encourage more of it for every individual. I am in the design field, and did my graduate thesis on how workplace design could encourage choice, which leads to feelings of control over the environment, and therefore encourages self-efficacy.
Re: your question about what I’m excited about right now... I’m excited about groups that are actively visioning and building agency and ways those agents can live in “right relationship with our ecosystems,“ as stated by Black Visions Collective. I’m also excited by the Reparations Summer called for by Black Land & Liberation.
I would love to funnel resources to groups such as these as well as continue to explore how architecture & design can provide a foundation for “living in right relationship”
Thank you for continuing to write for us, I always click on the links.
A funny ladies podcast I listen to also recently threatened to stop production because they are white (they got over the urge to be quiet as quickly as you did). Was it a true threat? I don’t know but I understand the feeling and I am relieved to not lose any intelligent women from my virtual life. I value your opinion and if you continue to promote the voices of minorities I will keep reading.
So much of the stuff I usually read is totally taken over by just all the same stuff and, yeah it's important and I largely agree with it, but it's like people are treating their own usual contribution as worthless, which it totally isn't. That's calmed down a bit now and personalities are re-emerging. And passing on information and funding is one thing and incredibly important. But in what way is what people create less important than, like, memes about Trump being just a bit of a ninny, or relaying his latest terrible pun? There's a reason why authoritarian regimes come for artists and intellectuals first, after all. I guess social media and late capitalism make that unnecessary.
Re: Ghibli - highly recommend Pom Poko, a movie in which raccoons are magical shape shifters, and listening to all of the Ghibli soundtracks in this playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/37i9dQZF1DX7GTqMQDhOum?si=FQ3dzmHlRA-xaX37qSNpYA
Also, love the links you share, and love the transparency you bring to each newsletter ❤️
Also dare I strongly recommend Grave of the Fireflies? If you have a good stock of tissues that is. I fucking sobbed at that movie.
Pom Poko and Only Yesterday are probably my favourite Ghibli movies, I skew heavily towards Isao Takahata. Though huge soft spot for Porco Rosso, as well.
your writing articulates what I have sat on for some time. thank you for laying out your exploration and critiques. I wish I had more crucial dialogue to share, but I wanted to offer a comment re: #8. it depends on the dictionary company, but definitions are listed by their chronological usage rather than how commonly they're used (see Merriam-Webster vs. New Oxford American). also interesting that most dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, so definitions are only published after they've been in use and recorded in language for some time already (though I admittedly have never used or seen the elf usage before??). I read about this in Kory Stamper's book "Word by Word," which I would absolutely recommend for a sarcastically entertaining non-fiction experience.
This is great, Haley. I’ve been feeling frozen and sad and frustrated, and I haven’t been able to put any of my thoughts into words, so this was helpful. I’ve found myself rolling my eyes at people who I consider to be allies and communities that I’m a part of on more than one occasion in the past few weeks, then immediately feeling guilty about not having my priorities straight. I’ve had to remind myself that this is a difficult time and feeling complicated emotions as a result is to be expected. For what it’s worth, I’m a woman of color, so I doubt it’s just because you’re white.
Interesting thoughts -- thanks for sharing. I don't believe 'call out' culture is helpful unless the call out is done in a way that offers genuine room for education, reflection and growth. I see some of that, but also some shaming which does seem divisive, as you said, among people who have the same goals. The consequence is that social media has become fraught: any well-meaning post, or even a post about a big life milestone, can be taken the wrong way or seen as inappropriate. Thoughts about this vary so there's no sense of 'right'/'wrong.' And I struggle with this piece particularly: anything posted online is by definition, performative, part of building one's public identity (I think we can all agree, no matter how casual we are about SM, that this is part of what we do there, whether intentionally or not). So perhaps, by definition, unhelpful? And the other piece is that what will never be visible online is the real work, whether you're investigating personal biases, talking to family, advocating for change in your work place, making donations... so why are we basing so much-- even rewriting our perceptions of friends-- off of what IS visible? (Huge disclaimer that of course this applies only to genuine allies and progressives who are working/thinking seriously to become anti-racist, not to the apathetic or conservatives).
Oh boy. I think it comes down to something super simple for me: tone policing. Insinuating to people that the way they've held their oppressor accountable is too messy, chaotic, uncomfortable, harsh, or punitive is just tone policing. Over the weekend, I listened to a podcast that brought up tone policing as something white people should *never* do to Black and Brown people, but *must* do to themselves in conversation with other white people to bring them into these discussions and this movement. When you worry about turning people away from this conversation, you need to understand that this conversation is centuries old, and in the face of trauma and brutalization, we cannot tone police the most impacted people. Instead, we must collect our own people and bring them to this conversation, through the door that is (graciously, miraculously) still open for them to pass through and into collective liberation. We are living through an extraordinary moment, but there is no time for white fragility here.
I don't think she's talking about people holding their oppressor accountable though, more people who come off the back of that. It was obvious at MR : people who weren't either former employees who had a bad time, or Black or queer or just plain poor people feeling alienated by the content, but people who just drift to where people are down and throw in a few extra kicks.
Plus why are we using the title of a book by a white lady who makes money off racism, specifically by making Amazon warehouse workers go to sensitivity training? Let's face it, she wants everyone to keep being racist or she's out of a job.
Agreed that the MR comment section was out of hand and that the personal slights there were shocking. But thats a distinction that could have been made in the newsletter! As far as the white fragility comment: sure. But oftentimes white people need to hear it from other white people, which is an expression of how white supremacy has ordered our society. Hopefully everyone scarfing down DiAngelo turns to Baldwin and Davis next. I've seen the phrase and concept be useful to people in my life.
Would you be more receptive if I, as a woman of color, expressed my unease with the way some things are being handled within certain progressive circles? The problem with your reasoning is that it poses no limits. As long as you can claim your community has been historically abused, feel free to be as unfair and vengeful as you want to be, because you “earned” it. And you mention the “conversation”...I think the problem Haley is pointing out is that some people are being banned from the conversation altogether, whether they double down, apologize, defend themselves or any other reaction they may have. I’m all for making reparations, but ultimately these are real people, and most of them are not monsters beyond hope. A lot of them, ultimately, are products of their environment, like we all are. They were probably not smart or brave or virtuous enough to question their role in systemic oppression but it’s not like they woke up every day setting out to hurt a minority. The truth is, if I were born a white person in America, who knows if I wouldn’t have done or said things I’d end up regretting
I'm a WOC who is white presenting and often (but not always) read as white, so I've taken up a role as the "cultural mediary" to white peers in discussions about race, in which I tone police myself quite a bit because of the reasons you outlined above - people do need the grace necessary to make real personal changes, as they are not, as you said "monsters beyond hope". What I'm saying is that there is a difference between people in that role, and people who have been personally and systemically disenfranchised and oppressed. And the cultural discourse needs to move beyond niceties to make progress. Everyone has the right to be comfortable or uncomfortable with different things, but it's important to be critical. Also, as far as people being banned from the conversation, we need to acknowledge that not everyone enters the conversation at the same point in their journey or education. It's ok to do some learning on your own or in community with others at a similar stage to you before entering the larger conversation. I see nothing wrong with that, as it encourages personal growth that is true and not performative, and alleviates others the emotional labor of educating you...I guess my qualm is why we think that people who are being called out deserve so much grace, and the ones doing the calling out do not, and should cushion and package their message for easy delivery. I agree that the social media pile on isn't always productive, but again: it's not my job to police someone elses tone, experience, or expression of that experience. Same for Haley! This is a comment section, not a jury.
Eric Weinstein calls this line of thought, the more you've been wronged (or claimed to be wronged) the more right you are, because no one can challenge (or allegedly ever ever understand) the plight you have been through. So the less identity intersectional traits one has, the less they have a say in the conversation.
I've also arrived to a very similar vocabulary, while thinking about social media. I've come to see it as shades of panopticon, surveillance, behaviorally affecting and incentivizing people to heights of delusion (particularly re: influence and action). Your little note on autological words though is very intriguing, particularly re: tone policing. I wonder how much of my disdain falls under a kind of self-assuaging performance...It's difficult to parse how deep the infiltration goes.
I also find it disappointing to see how popular "critical" discourse (esp. on social media) is satisfied and sedated by reductive urban legends in the guise of rigorous theory. For example, the (punitive) behaviors and (oversimplified) ethics that people enact still allow for unobserved racecraft to thrive: the racism has metastasized.
I've been disturbed by, say, those who will claim they are for restorative justice, but are heavily didactic in their personal ethics. There's a heavy-handed fixation with the individual (and weirdly, it often becomes a metaphysical obsession with a person's interiority and soul). Or the ways the culture demands for purity tests in regressive, reactive (puritanical, calvinian) ways. Policing.
One little glimmer of hope I see in all this though, is my understanding that people are trying to develop a “new” social ethics, a new vocabulary, by which we can reach, hopefully, equity and thriving. Of course, I see a lot of pretense that in fact re-entrenches tired and familiar oppressions, or a fixation on gaining the upper hand on what is essentially mutable: norms (See: Overton window).
By the way, I thoroughly enjoy the hyperlinks and bullet points of what you have been reading. Perhaps I am the few who do click through them. Please continue to do so! It has diversified my media consumption for the better!
Haley! Have you read Trick Mirror? I just started it and Jia touches upon some of the “examined life” and social media, among other topics. I’ve found it to be the additional conversation I need, as I read it. Thank you as always for these newsletters and your honesty and writing is always appreciated. THANK YOU!
I recall when HN was at MR, she has written on Trick Mirror/Jia Tolentino :)
I was a linguistics major so I'm loving the shout out to autological words and the Kafka trap! I'm also into my sudden realization/spin off mental meme that your name could be the call and response of a stoner avoiding someone looking for them at a party.
Person A: "I think that's them..Haley! Hey, over here, Haley! *squeezes awkwardly across the crowded room and taps Person B on shoulder* Haley?" Person B: *turns slowly, looks Person A up and down* Nah man. *immediately turns back around and continues conversation with others*.
Sorry, I've uhh..I've been inside a while...