A Purposefully Vague Story

Here is the situation: a prominent feminist, on a panel that is against online harassment, insults a prominent critic of hers in front of a crowd of her supporters. This prominent critic is pro-free speech and is trying to get the prominent feminist removed from panel by using the rules of the event.

 

Another prominent critic of hers is critical of this behavior and argues that it is the same behavior as people notorious for violating free speech.

 

Who is right and who is wrong?

 

Let's think about it. The prominent critic has just been publicly insulted by someone for simply being in the audience. He's faced with a few choices in this situation:

 

 1. Do nothing.

In this situation, the prominent feminist has already sullied her reputation with her behavior. Essentially, it is guaranteed not to help her cause, but given how well she's been able to ride the ideology wave, she hasn't been hurt much by her critics. She still gets paid very well.

 

Doing nothing would likely result in this becoming a meme and nothing more. But the prominent critic would have taken the high road and looked noble to some and weak to others.

 

 2. File a complaint publicly.

Using the rules against the prominent feminist in this method opens the prominent critic up to a lot of understandable criticism especially given his position on free speech. However, if we're going to bother writing rules, shouldn't they be enforced? 

 

The position that this other critic has of the prominent critic is that by de-platforming the prominent feminist, he's using the same tactics of the people he criticizes. That is being disingenuous. The prominent critic is not breaking the rules, like pulling a fire alarm or storming the stage, to get the prominent feminist removed; he's using the rules that the prominent feminist broke to get her removed.

 

I know it seems like it is the same, but it is different. One is upholding the rules to have someone removed; the others break the rules to have someone removed.

 

3. File a complaint privately.

Same process as the second option, but no publicity on his part. This is a very risky tactic, but considered the civil way to do shit like this. However, the likelihood of this staying private is limited given his popularity on the internet. The major risk is that he will be painted as someone sneaky; trying to secretly get this prominent feminist removed from the platform.

 

And, by doing it privately, it could be ignored by the people in charge depending on how much perceived damage could be done to their reputation. If they boot the prominent feminist, they will be painted as misogynists and sexist. However, if they ignore the prominent critic... ...they'll receive very little backlash as he is usually painted as the bad guy.

 

There are a few other choices including: going ape shit on the internet, starting a petition to have the prominent feminist banned from all platforms, handing out torches and pitchforks to the locals at the event... but those three are the logical three, the way I see it.

 

The prominent critic went with choice number two and seemed to get a little self-righteous about it. My hope is that the presentation is meant to parody the language that is used by the people spearheading the campaign to make insults illegal. Because that is how it sounds, but given it is a call to action... I can understand the mental dilemma.

 

It is difficult to claim parody while still using it as a method to go after someone. Even in a justified situation; it appears manipulative. 

 

The facts as I see them are this: the other critic that claims that the first critic is de-platforming the prominent feminist is wrong. The prominent feminist de-platformed herself when she broke the rules set by the establishment. The rules that would have gotten the prominent critic removed if he had broken them in the exact same way.

 

While the situation is a little sad all around, sometimes you have to enforce the rules to make a point. Is the prominent critic a hypocrite for doing it? A bit, as I don't think he'd make a point out of it if this prominent feminist hadn't been the one to complain at the United Nations... about her own behavior.

 

There's always nuance to these kinds of situations and all these people have history. I think the prominent critic is likely playing up his embarrassment for effect, but I do not doubt that he was embarrassed by the situation. I think the prominent feminist proved that she's as much of a shit lord as the rest of humanity and shouldn't be trusted to write anti-harassment policy as she has proven to abuse her own authority.

 

And that other critic was just looking for attention because... that's part of the job.