Tag Archives: social justice

Understanding “Safe Spaces” as Expressions of Ideals

Posted on by

In observing the interactions and conversations about social justice and related topics, one thing that becomes increasingly apparent is the stark difference in perspective that can come from being a minority vs. a majority. In particular, the criticism of “overreaction” is a fascinating one to explore, because of how it can lead to the idea that “political correctness” is causing more problems than it solves. However, what I find is that the issue isn’t so much that people are oversensitive, or even that the other side is composed of monsters, but that there is a particular approach to life that is implicit in the actions of many who take can be thought of as “overreacting.” I call this “externalization of an internal ideal.”

Before I continue, I want to say this: although I’ve actually been thinking about this subject quite a bit, it’s Duncan “Thorin” Shields’s recent video above arguing how the media is all too eager to create outrage that has prompted me to really commit my thoughts to text. This is because, while I don’t agree with some of the key points of his video, he at least lays it all out such that it promotes debate and discussion. And even if I’m not of a similar belief to him in certain respects, I still highly value his work on eSports and continue to watch his videos regularly.

At one point in Thorin’s video, he mentions the Donald Trump “pussy grabbing” scandal, arguing that the outcry against it was exaggerated to an absurd extent. This is not because Thorin is defending sexual assault, but that the way in which Trump was speaking was in the context of a private conversation between men where the objectification of women is par for the course. The idea laid out in this minor point is that Trump’s words should have been a surprise to no one, so to respond with shock and horror is to willfully ignore reality.

I think Thorin is right in a certain sense, but I also don’t think that this is automatically a problem. Although some might navigate their lives by saying, “This is how the world is, so I’d better figure out how to best work within those restrictions,” others might instead think, “I want to live my life as if the world is at the point I wish it to be.”

Let’s put this in the context of minorities. When it comes to the dictionary definition of a “minority,” it would only make sense that they would feel like the world does not cater to them. If there was a world where the population was 99% majority and 1% minority, then mathematically it would be unlikely for this minority to gain much traction. And yet, that does not mean someone who is a member of a minority should only ever be able to feel like they are excluded from the majority, that they cannot act as if they are the default or standard. If there is a black person, or an Asian person, or a gay person, or a transgender person, and their mindset is to behave as if they are not an outsider, that they are not the “other,” then I think that is a perfectly fine way to live.

This is also why I think the idea of “safe spaces” is often misunderstood. Sometimes you’ll see them characterized as “hug boxes,” or places that prevent people from learning to overcome adversity. If the “real world” is where iron sharpens iron, then safe spaces are supposedly sites of stagnation for individuals and groups. But their ideal function is to be a place where one can feel “normal,” that they are not some deviation that must inevitably be compared to what is most common in society. Why shouldn’t women want a world where they’re not judged first by their looks, even if the first thing we tend to notice about people is how they look? Why shouldn’t a racial minority get to spend some time without being implicitly judged by their skin tone and the cultural stereotypes they carry?

There is a downside to all this. If you live by trying to externalize your ideals, you risk creating a false perception of the world, especially if you ignore the need for reality checks. However, if you take the world “as it is,” then you might end up reinforcing hierarchies if the desire to fight is absent. What I think is especially important in the former’s case, and why I think the notion can seem so foreign to certain people is that it carries a kind of utopian desire. Rather than simply imposing one’s will upon the world and forcing it to obey, it’s a mark of a hope for a better world. Instead of the world telling you how you are, you tell the world how you are. Even if people “shouldn’t” have been outraged at Donald Trump’s words, they want the world to be one where implied sexual assault is admonished. Only by understanding this perspective can discussion really begin.

I am not someone who believes “overreaction” does not exist, or that it is a wholly unfair criticism towards liberals. It is all too easy for even well-meaning people to have knee-jerk reactions, not understand the context of a situation, and then ride their anger without looking back. Nevertheless, I do think that this desire for an ideal world is not simply a pipe dream or a refusal to acknowledge reality. The better way to look at it is as a wish for the world to be a better place starting with one’s own mind and body.

The Dangers of Righteousness: Thoughts on the Recent Steven Universe Tumblr Incident

Posted on by

Recently, there was an incident where a Steven Universe fanartist named Zamii was bullied online through Tumblr, actively harassed over what the aggressors stated to be the artist’s racist, sexist, and problematic fanart. More than simple and well-meaning criticism, it reached the point that the artist attempted suicide, and even the Executive Producer of Steven Universe had to step in and essentially defend fanart as a form of freedom of expression. It gets more complicated than that, but here’s a helpful article that summarizes the whole controversy.

I wanted to say something about this issue, but the problem was that there’s actually so much wrong with this situation that I was having trouble deciding where to begin. So, I think I’m going to start from the basics, the core ideas that I think need to be understood and appreciated so that people willingly reflect on their actions. If these are communicated successfully, then maybe I’ll branch out further in a future post.

We currently live in a time where people are increasingly aware of how perceptions of themselves and the world are shaped in part by the media around them. If you’re a girl and you grow up in a world that tells you women are sluts, that’s going to affect you on some level, even if you ultimately defy it. If you’re a minority and you’re told that you can only work certain jobs, or you’re fat and being told that you can never be beautiful, then it’s going to stay with you, needling at the back of your mind. This is what makes Steven Universe such an interesting series: its diversity of representation, and the strength and growth of its characters are not only well-written but can even be said to question race, gender, and sexuality norms in an uplifting manner. This is what attracts many fans to Steven Universe, and why diversity is at times at the forefront of discussion about the series.

Were the harassers right about Zamii’s art being problematic? I do not believe so personally, but on some level it doesn’t matter how justified their position was.  They could have been 100% right for all I care. The problem is—and I want not just people involved in this situation but everyone to read this—even if you are right, it does not give you the license to be an asshole.

Of course I know things aren’t so cut and dry. There are strong emotions at work, and unlike those who believe that emotions are inherently counter to logic, I think that they actually can help to reveal some of the issues with ourselves and our societies in ways that complement the use of reason. In fact, I believe that emotion is of utmost importance to those bold words above because it’s a matter of empathy, and empathy is a quality that is worth extending to everyone, even those with whom you vehemently disagree.

Ideas can be thought of as living entities, ever-changing as they interact with other ideas. What seems like a sound notion that benefits the greater good in one decade may be revealed to be harmful or dangerous in another. What makes thinking and learning so crucial to societies is that there is the possibility of growth, and that we as human beings are not beholden to the doctrines of yesterday. This is what has allowed race and gender equality to take hold and make progress, even if only a little bit. When you honestly believe in your righteousness to the extent that you feel it necessary to fulfill its demands no matter the consequences, then you are falling into the very trap that all of this progress was meant to avoid. A bully clad in the conviction of helping others is still a bully at the end of the day.

This is not to say that people should never stand up for what they believe in, or that no actions should be taken when someone or something is wrong. However, when you take such an extreme position, that you are right and the “enemy” is wrong and must be brought to justice, mob or otherwise, you paint yourself into a corner. If you harass them directly, create websites dedicated to discussing how terrible they are, or even go as far as to obtain their personal information for the purpose of tormenting them, then you are pretty much saying that the ends justify the means. If that’s the case, then here’s a simple question: how would you feel if it happened to you?

It’s possible that you believe that it would never happen to you, because you’re morally upstanding in every way. Your philosophy on a variety of topics is in favor of acceptance, tolerance, and diversity. Will that always be the case, though? Are you sure that everything you think and feel will always be considered correct and not harmful or problematic? Whatever the case may be, if you harass and bully others, you’re pretty much saying that others would be equally justified in attacking you should the occasion arise. And even if you are indeed morally pristine, that doesn’t prevent it from still potentially happening to you. All people need to do is 1) believe that you’re somehow wrong or evil 2) stand by the idea that the ends justify the means and 3) not understand that you’re a human being too.

Before I end off, there’s another side to all of this that I think has to be mentioned, which is the allure of being on the “winning side.” I understand that, on a very basic human level, people want to feel that they’re right. They want to stand with the majority because it doesn’t only make life easier, it just feels good. As much as I’ve talked about all of this being a problem, it’s not like I’m totally innocent of this. When I was picked on as a kid, I would sometimes fall to the temptation of picking on kids even dorkier than I was. I was wrong, of course. I shouldn’t have ever done that, and to remember that I was willing to join the horrible little assholes who would make my own life hell just for that brief respite from being the target still kind of makes me sick. Please understand that your actions are not in a vacuum, and that when you join in on attacking someone because you either want the thrill of being part of the in-crowd or enjoy seeing others suffer, even if it’s “for the right reasons,” you’re condoning an attitude and approach to solving problems that only begets more hatred and more “us vs. them” mentalities that work not to bridge gaps but to widen them.

—

If you liked this post, consider becoming a sponsor of Ogiue Maniax through Patreon. You can get rewards for higher pledges, including a chance to request topics for the blog.