![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blatherskiteToday, I faced the heartbreaking task of having to eliminate a long-term colleague from my circle of "Internet friends". I've known this person for many years, and generally appreciated their brains and sense of humor and enjoyed spending time with them at conferences. But in recent years, they've begun distributing e-mails that I found at best misinformed, and at worst outright creepy.
The first sign of trouble was when this person started passing along all that tripe that was being used as ad hominem attacks on Barack Obama during the recent U.S. election campaign. You know the stuff: Obama was a Muslim fifth-columnist, not a U.S. citizen, and so on. Most of this stuff was thinly veiled racism or the standard offensive political smear campaign material, and I let my colleague know in no uncertain terms that while I was fully prepared to tolerate political opinions I didn't agree with, and indeed encouraged debate on such issues, I insisted that contrary opinions be based on verifiable facts, not on demagoguery and lies.
The final straw came when this person ignored my repeated requests to stop sending me anti-Muslim tracts that had no purpose other than to stir up fear and hatred against all Muslims. Let me be clear on one point: it's certainly true that most of the high-profile terrorism currently being reported by the world's media is being perpetrated by Islamic extremists. But we need to interpret that in light of two things: First and most important, we need to remember that these are extremists, not the majority of Muslims. Second, and almost as important, we need to remember that the Western media are both ill-informed about Islam and strongly prejudiced against it, thereby requiring a measure of skepticism in how we interpret their opinions.
Those of us who are specialists in communication have a responsibility to communicate well and clearly; that should go without saying. But what we often forget is that communication is not ethically neutral, and that we have a responsibility not to spread misinformation that risks harming others. That's particularly true when those others are a minority (as Muslims are in Western society) and when most of that minority are innocent of any wrong-doing. Historically, lynchings and pogroms and ethnic cleansing and other forms of racially motivated violence begin with fear-mongering and the sowing of hatred; once the enemy has been sufficiently demonized that they are no longer treated as human, they're fair game for violence.
Free speech is important, but those who yell most loudly about the need to protect free speech conveniently forget that all speech has consequences, and that each of us must circumscribe our desire for free speech with a recognition of our responsibility to speak ethically, with an understanding of the consequences of what we say. We cannot force others to accept that responsibility, but we can at least embrace it in our own communication.
So today, after many efforts to explain to my colleague why their e-mail messages were racist, offensive, and (in my opinion) dangerous to many innocent people, I told them that I'd had enough and would no longer read any of their messages. I don't delude myself that this will have any significant effect on this person's behavior. I'm certain they'll continue to distribute their racist and narrow-minded screeds to their personal mailing list. But I won't be party to this behavior any more, and have at least tried to help them understand why their behavior is intolerable.
If, like me, you're a communicator by profession, I urge you to take a similar stand when you see powerful communication tools being abused for unethical purposes. Political philosopher Edmund Burke is widely believed to have said that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", and although this appears to be a misattribution, it also seems to be a legitimate paraphrase of some of his writing, and one we should carefully heed.
The first sign of trouble was when this person started passing along all that tripe that was being used as ad hominem attacks on Barack Obama during the recent U.S. election campaign. You know the stuff: Obama was a Muslim fifth-columnist, not a U.S. citizen, and so on. Most of this stuff was thinly veiled racism or the standard offensive political smear campaign material, and I let my colleague know in no uncertain terms that while I was fully prepared to tolerate political opinions I didn't agree with, and indeed encouraged debate on such issues, I insisted that contrary opinions be based on verifiable facts, not on demagoguery and lies.
The final straw came when this person ignored my repeated requests to stop sending me anti-Muslim tracts that had no purpose other than to stir up fear and hatred against all Muslims. Let me be clear on one point: it's certainly true that most of the high-profile terrorism currently being reported by the world's media is being perpetrated by Islamic extremists. But we need to interpret that in light of two things: First and most important, we need to remember that these are extremists, not the majority of Muslims. Second, and almost as important, we need to remember that the Western media are both ill-informed about Islam and strongly prejudiced against it, thereby requiring a measure of skepticism in how we interpret their opinions.
Those of us who are specialists in communication have a responsibility to communicate well and clearly; that should go without saying. But what we often forget is that communication is not ethically neutral, and that we have a responsibility not to spread misinformation that risks harming others. That's particularly true when those others are a minority (as Muslims are in Western society) and when most of that minority are innocent of any wrong-doing. Historically, lynchings and pogroms and ethnic cleansing and other forms of racially motivated violence begin with fear-mongering and the sowing of hatred; once the enemy has been sufficiently demonized that they are no longer treated as human, they're fair game for violence.
Free speech is important, but those who yell most loudly about the need to protect free speech conveniently forget that all speech has consequences, and that each of us must circumscribe our desire for free speech with a recognition of our responsibility to speak ethically, with an understanding of the consequences of what we say. We cannot force others to accept that responsibility, but we can at least embrace it in our own communication.
So today, after many efforts to explain to my colleague why their e-mail messages were racist, offensive, and (in my opinion) dangerous to many innocent people, I told them that I'd had enough and would no longer read any of their messages. I don't delude myself that this will have any significant effect on this person's behavior. I'm certain they'll continue to distribute their racist and narrow-minded screeds to their personal mailing list. But I won't be party to this behavior any more, and have at least tried to help them understand why their behavior is intolerable.
If, like me, you're a communicator by profession, I urge you to take a similar stand when you see powerful communication tools being abused for unethical purposes. Political philosopher Edmund Burke is widely believed to have said that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", and although this appears to be a misattribution, it also seems to be a legitimate paraphrase of some of his writing, and one we should carefully heed.
Re: Disgusting
Date: 2010-06-14 04:23 pm (UTC)I believe I covered that in my comment starting with "Let me be clear on one point..." We don't disagree on this point. My objection is to tarring all Muslims with the same brush, which is what the person was doing.
**including the gentleman you dishonestly labeled (or, at least, implied to be) a racist, whom I have known for 35 years**
Context: This refers both to the blog post and to the private message to the friend whom I "fired" because of their behavior. I suggested they share it with the other people who received the final message that caused me to fire them so as to provide some balance. Responding publicly to that message is certainly legitimate, so if you're tempted to chastise Anonymous, please don't.
My response: I may be factually incorrect, but I'm not dishonest: I called it the way I saw it. That's called "honesty" hereabouts. If it quacks like a duck, then it's behaving like a duck. If that doesn't match the person's self-image, they should stop quacking.
**Sir, everyone who disagrees with Obama's policy in not the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Everyone who fears Muslim threats is not a reactionary.**
I did not criticize my former friend for criticizing Obama's policies. I criticized them for distributing tripe such as the suspicion that he wasn't American and was a fifth columnist. Please read carefully before you criticize what I said. fwiw, I have serious objections to many things Obama is currently doing and failing to do, but since this isn't a political blog, I have not commented on them here. They're simply not relevant
**Despite your qualifiers and mitigating attempts, you are, indeed, promoting censorship.**
In no way am I promoting censorship: if I were, I would have deleted your message. Which I won't do. I criticize and vehemently oppose the deliberate dissemination of misinformation, particularly when that misinformation is intended to cause fear and hatred. Free speech does not provide carte blanche to slander someone nor does it encourage hateful acts; both are prohibited by laws such as those against libel and slander (in most countries, including in the U.S.) and against hate crimes (here in Canada).
In this specific case, I exercised my right not to have to read hateful tripe. That's self-censorship, not censorship of anyone else. What you choose to discuss among yourselves is up to you; just don't make me read it. In my blog, I do not call for censoring of anyone: I do call for not letting untruths and hate go unchallenged. Debating these issues in a public forum is crucially important, which is why I'm glad you took the time to respond to my post.
**I wonder if you were so quick to defend Bush from the "ad hominem" attacks when he was in office.**
Only when those attacks were factually incorrect. Sadly, slanders of Bush were more often true than false.
**People like you have caused to be very careful in affixing the liberal label to someone, because, you and many others who may call yourselves liberals are NOT.**
I don't consider myself a liberal; I consider myself to be a moderate, which means that I critique both political extremes when it's merited. Sadly, that tends to offend both liberals and conservatives.
**Rather, you are radical leftists. A radical leftist is as much a cancer to society and a radical right winger.**
How am I either (a) radical or (b) a leftist? You're certainly correct that extremists on the left are every bit as bad as those on the right. I just don't see how I fall into that category.
**And for God's sake,learn pronoun agreement in your sentences**
My pronoun agreement is just fine, thanks, so I assume you're objecting to the use of "they" and "their" as singular pronouns. A quick check of the dictionary will confirm that this is a legitimate usage dating back centuries. It's less elegant than using the correct gender, but I deliberately chose this approach rather than using a gender-specific pronoun because I did not want to provide any unnecessary clues to this person's identity.