The debate between Native American activists and National Football League officials over the Washington Redskins’ team name has antagonized participants on both sides of the issue. This past week, reporters for “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” staged a showdown between Native American protesters and Redskins fans. The show’s producers did not warn the invited fans that the confrontation would take place, however, and some complained of being attacked for their beliefs.
A rare satirical misstep for “The Daily Show,” the incident highlights an ever-growing problem in which individuals with little stake in debates are pulled into public dialog meant for a specific few. While Native American activists have every right to voice outrage over the perceived commodification of their culture, the expectation that everyone should have an equally passionate response unhelpfully mobilizes polarized factions around social issues.
The monopoly of political correctness, together with social media, has bred an environment in which everything from activism to philanthropy have been reduced to virtual bandwagoning. Twitter and Facebook enable everyone to instantly and uncritically access the opinions of their friends and followers about every “trending” topic—from the recent crisis in Iraq to Kim and Kanye’s wedding. The inherent problem with this culture of immediate participation in “trending” opinions is their forced brevity. Messages diluted to 140 characters or Facebook statuses are inhospitable to complexities of message including narrative, logical argument, and nuance. This environment has hobbled individuals’ ability to inform themselves adequately about current events enough to express a decisive yet informed opinion. Instead, issues far too expansive to be encapsulated within a single Tweet have been reduced to their most provocative, radical, or contentious essence.
Internet activism began as a valuable tool for bringing to light important global issues, including sexual assault (recall the #YesAllWomen trend this summer) and political corruption (social media played an important role in galvanizing the Arab Spring). This becomes problematic, however, when social media is viewed as the most important outlet for social change. The Wall Street Journal’s Jeff Wang refers to this phenomenon as “the weaponized hashtag.”
Unintended negative consequences occur when this kind of activism becomes not only the only acceptable view but also one that must be defended through online militancy. Last fall, Slate columnist Emily Yoffe’s suggestion that women could reduce their chances of being sexually assaulted by reducing their binge-drinking tendencies was viciously attacked as another example of “victim blaming,” rather than engaging in a more complex conversation about the intersection between alcohol and sexual assault.
The power of social media activism is its ability to reach millions. But when the broadcasted message is not multi-faceted, misunderstanding reigns. Every issue is complex, and there is nothing to be gained from oversimplification. Acknowledging gray areas is not a weakness, but rather the strength that reduces hostility, generates conversation, and triggers action.
Racists shouldn’t be confronted about racism because internet. Got it.
This “forced brevity” argument is bullshit. If you can’t sum up your ideas in 140 characters, it’s not worth expressing.
Social media are tools. You can use it in lots of different ways. It doesn’t harm discourse. There’s just a whole lot more of it.