The Toxicity of Revenge Culture

Every time something tragic happens – particularly when it’s heightened by racial tension, like the murder of George Floyd – it seems the worst of humanity comes out of the woodwork. Alongside news of protests, police brutality and burning buildings are countless streams of people – usually white – caught on camera being aggressively racist, inciting or causing violence, and all-round being essentially despicable pieces of human garbage.

It isn’t clear whether this seems to happen more during times of public outrage because racists are fighting what they see as a threat to their way of life, or if it’s just that the rest of us pay more attention at these times, but from calling cops on non-threatening black men to assualting young girls trying to stand up for Black Lives Matter, there has been no end to the instances of hate directed at the people who are trying desperately to fight for their freedom and equality.

The good news, of course, is that in today’s society of smart phones and everywhere-cameras, it’s become increasingly difficult to act like a bigot in public without being caught. And in the instances where these outrageous performances are recorded and uploaded to the internet, they often go viral – a swift dose of karma to the perpetrators.

And karma feels good. It’s undeniably satisfying to see a racist cut down to size; it feels good to watch as someone unbearably proud of their whiteness is ripped apart on social media.

The problem is that this isn’t an answer to racism. It isn’t an answer to intolerance, or bigotry, because the people who were initially the agressors become victims of hate themselves, and even if it feels like they deserve it, many of these people’s lives are destroyed by their acts of intolerance. What happens then is that these people, who clearly believe in their own superiority, don’t learn not to be a bigot; they learn to hide it. They don’t learn to change; they learn instead that they were right all along, and that the people they hated deserve that hate.

Nearly every one of these stories I’ve seen of people abusing others from a delusional position of authority has ended with them losing their jobs, their homes, and at times even their families. Corporate sponsors cut ties, employers fire them, and they’re left with no means to live – and worse, the stain of being branded forever a racist indelible on their reputation.

Now, I’m not advocating that these people ‘deserve’ better; I don’t believe in judging others without knowing them, and an individual act of racism does not a racist make – just like being wrong once doesn’t make you wrong all the time. But what happens is that the internet allows people, from the relative safety of their online anonymity, to pass judgement nonetheless on people they’ve never met and know nothing about.

But what I do believe is that the answer to racism doesn’t lie in avenging the victims, or in destroying the establishment. By taking everything away from someone who made a racist remark or acted out against another person because of their inherently misplaced beliefs, we’re only reinforcing the notion that the ‘others’ are indeed bad people, and that they’ll be punished for speaking out. It fosters a false victim mentality, and breeds a culture that actually causes racism to fester and grow. Rather than looking to themselves to ask why this happened, these people will simply blame the oppressed for oppressing them.

No – the answer to racism lies in education. I believe strongly in the inherent goodness of humanity – the idea that people are good at heart (at least to some degree), and their upbringing and education is what shapes their personalities. As you navigate life, growing older day by day, it’s likely that you’ll end up choosing paths that fit in line with your taught beliefs naturally, which only reinforces those notions and ideas that, for many of us, remain subconscious all our lives. It’s easy to teach a four-year-old to play nice with others; it’s much harder to change the outlook of a forty-year-old.

And some people, of course, are taught so poorly in their childhood, and live a life that so strongly reinforces their negative beliefs, that they quickly become irredeemable. This happens in all walks of life, of course, but since we live in a society that has always favored white men over all others, it allows for those immutable personalities to rise to power more easily than those with more open minds, which allows them to make the rules and define the society we live in to their own liking … leaving room to grow for the systemic racism and misogyny that has rotted the heart of this country for centuries.

But these people – these truly ‘bad apples’ – are generally few and far between. Most people, I think, have the capacity to relearn their world-view in the face of new information, so long as it’s presented in a way that doesn’t uproot everything they’ve ever known. People fear change, and will cling desperately to unfamiliarity. By wreaking revenge on people who are outwardly racist, we’re only causing further damage to the idea of peaceful equality. You can’t build yourself up by tearing others down.

So what I suggest is this: next time you see a story on Facebook or Twitter about a racist being put in their place, ask yourself – am I really so different? Have I never laughed at a racist joke, or worried more about passing through a black neighborhood than a white one? Anyone can say the wrong thing at the wrong time, and whilst many of the acts making the rounds truly are deplorable, who are we to decide their fate? Getting someone fired for poor behavior when they aren’t even working is akin to vigilante justice, which is a dangerous thing to throw around.

I’ve heard it said that racism isn’t black people’s problem – it’s white people’s. In that context, I think it’s as important to listen to the racists as it is to listen to the oppressed. If we actually give everyone a forum to speak intelligently – rather than forcing people into acts of aggression because they feel their voices are unheard – I think there would be a much better opportunity to help those people with racial biases to actually understand themselves better, gain insight, and perhaps – just perhaps – grow and change.

I suppose what I’m really trying to say is that we shouldn’t celebrate vengence on those who would oppress others. That doesn’t make anyone a better person. Instead, we should focus on celebrating those people who are willing and able to change. Celebrate those who can learn to love, not those who have only learned to hate.

Who have you seen grow or change in the past few months? Who can you celebrate?

The Fine Line Between Socially Justifiable and Morally Reprehensible

My wife asked me the other day what I thought about the scandal surrounding recently-resigned Florida Secretary of State Michael Ertel, wherein photos of him in blackface, mocking Hurricane Katrina victims, surfaced nearly fifteen years after the fact. To be fair, I hadn’t even heard, but it brought up a (short-lived) debate over what is, and what isn’t, justifiable in the long-term.

During the conversation, she brought up the controversy over Brett Cavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, and how he was not (successfully) persuaded to resign, despite the surfacing of what was, to many, a far worse crime. Her position was that, in Ertel’s case, despite the offensiveness of his behavior, no one was hurt – something that can’t be said of Cavanaugh. As such, it comes across as painfully ironic that the perpetrator of a lesser crime should suffer more than someone who stands accused of rape.

She pointed out that Ertel’s mockery of terrible suffering was – or at least could have been – nothing more than a poor decision, and not necessarily reflective of his perspective or personality, especially after fifteen years, whereas someone who thinks it’s okay to sexually assault women is, essentially, unredeemable.

It reminded me also of the case against Brock Turner, who was not simply accused of rape, but actually caught in the act itself. A great furore was made in his defense that his own actions were themselves simply a poor decision, and that a single mistake as a youth shouldn’t jeopardize an entire career, life, whatever.

I thought it interesting that my wife was willing to give someone mocking tragedy victims in a racially charged manner a second chance, but not someone who made the decision to rape another human being. She’s right, to an extent – far more individual harm was done by Cavanaugh and Turner than by Ertel – but to hinge the argument on the mental capacity for change – and the assumption that a rapist can’t change, but a racist can – is a potentially dangerous proposition.

I don’t normally take much of a stance on these types of societal problems – I feel too far removed, socially and mentally, to make a valid argument – but in this instance, it’s given me pause for thought. To start with, I want to dismiss the argument of ‘legal’ vs. ‘illegal’; laws are arbitrary, and fluctuate with the whims of what present-day society deems acceptable or not. I’m not going to discuss whether racial mockery is okay because it isn’t explicitly against the law; I’d rather discuss this in the context of what is, simply, right or wrong.

All things are driven by human decision; the decision to get up, the decision to go to bed, the decision to wear this shirt or that sweater, and the decision whether to do what’s right or what’s wrong. Of course, in that sense right and wrong are entirely subjective, and mercy to the whims of what’s socially implanted in our minds; we’re taught (as a whole) that rape is wrong, and yet men do it every day.


Why is that the decision they go with – to have sex with an unconscious girl, or to physically force themselves on someone who is literally fighting back? In the moment before the act, there is a decision – to do, or not to do. Most people, I think, would choose to not do, but there are, quite clearly, some who choose the opposite.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with the mental wiring in those individuals? Is it something that is inherent to their psychology, that no amount of teaching or conditioning can overcome? Is it simply that they were never taught to control their baser urges, and act without thought – and can they be taught to think, instead? Or, simpler still, is that in-the-moment decision to rape, or to wear blackface, the product of poor upbringing and circumstance – a combination that may never replicate itself exactly the same ever again?

This isn’t an easy debate; if Ertel hadn’t had these photos surface, he would still be Secretary of State – and would the fact of his behavior fifteen years ago change his ability to perform his job? Even if he thought such behavior was acceptable in 2005, does that mean he still does? The emergence of evidence doesn’t change the past – only how we view it. Certainly some people who held Ertel in high regard now condemn him – whilst others who never held an opinion one way or the other now feel sympathy.

If Brock Turner hadn’t been caught, would he have a burgeoning career, an academic future, and a happy life? Probably. Again – it doesn’t change the fact of what he did, only how he is perceived. If Turner had raped that girl and left, never to be known, he would have likely gone on to a perfectly normal life – at the expense of hers. Maybe he would have learned that he can get away with rape, and gone on to commit further crimes – or maybe it would have just become a skeleton in his closet.

To add fuel to the fire, the increasing impossibility of remaining private in a world of perpetual social impressions leads to the question of what’s more important: the act, or the act of being caught. Evidence of the past is becoming ever more difficult to erase, but should it be held against us years – sometimes decades – later? Surely, we’ve all done things we regret; does that mean we’re to be judged for life for those things?

I think there a couple of considerations when condemning – or forgiving – a person for their past. The point my wife brought up – of direct harm – is valid, and worth bearing in mind. What level of hurt did a person’s behavior effect upon another human being? Is it fair that a rapist be allowed a normal life, when their victim’s world is utterly shattered?

I also think the influence a person has on society should be taken into consideration when casting judgement on their past. Whilst no one is perfect, people with a wide sphere of influence – celebrities, politicians, lawmakers, etc. – absolutely must be held to a higher standard. It’s utterly deplorable that Brett Cavanaugh was even considered for the Supreme Court after the accusations leveled at him – in some ways, far worse than the lenient sentence levied against Brock Turner. And in equal measure, someone who behaves in a racist manner – be it then or now (for what it’s worth, Ertel was already a supervisor of elections in 2005) – should answer for their transgressions.

With that being said, I don’t believe that anyone – position of influence or not – should be treated differently in light of their crimes, for better or for worse. Cavanaugh and Turner should have been judged equally in the eyes of the law, and if found guilty, punished accordingly. In both cases, I don’t feel that true justice was served. As for Ertel, it’s no argument to say that 2005 was a different time, because racism is racism regardless of era. Context is important, but can’t be everything. Joke in poor taste or not, this is a person who chose a career in which he is in the public eye – and as such, has a duty to society to uphold the values that that same society deems worthy.

If there is a lesson to any of this, I think it might be this: the truth will always come out, and as such, it’s probably best to be true to yourself, and let the chips lie where they fall. I’ve been blogging since 2011, and there are probably things in my 813 posts that, in hindsight, I might’ve rather not written. Yet I can at least say, with some level of integrity, that what I’ve said was my truth, at that time, and as such shouldn’t be hidden or altered. If what I’ve said makes me reprehensible, then at least I know that’s who I am.

At the end of the day, our behaviors are what define us, and our actions over time are where judgement should lie. We all make mistakes, but a person’s true character can be told from two things: the egregiousness and the frequency of their crimes.

Can someone be forgiven for heinousness in their past? Can people truly change? Or does a person, once sinned, lose the right to repentance?

What do you think?

You Thought You Understood Clickbait. Now Read THIS.

If you’re reading this because of the headline, shame on you. Shame! I recently finished watching season 19 of South Park on Hulu. The main theme running through all ten episodes is the concept that advertisements are taking over our lives and newsfeeds, cleverly disguised as newsworthy articles. This ends up, naturally, being outrageously depicted as android-type beings, who are disposed of in humorous and violent ways.

But it made me think, as I’ve often done in the past, about the places I get my information from. Like most of us, I use Facebook, both professionally for my writing and to keep in touch with friends and family. I like it; I think it’s a useful tool that can connect people who would otherwise have great difficulty staying in touch. But Facebook, like any company, needs revenue, and they’ve chosen to get theirs from advertisements.

A lot of this takes the form of sidebar and inline advertisements, such as this one for Zume Pizza:

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 9.21.34 PM

I actually don’t mind these quite so much, because they are clearly marked as advertisements, and easily ignored or dismissed.

But then ‘Suggested Posts’ started happening. Take this one, for example:

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 9.23.36 PM

Perhaps because of my interests in science, reading and science-fiction (I’m fully aware of how companies like Facebook assess my interests, and that’s not a debate I’m willing to get into right now), Facebook has ‘suggested’ an article for me to read. But wait—it’s starting to have a somewhat suspicious feeling about it: shouldn’t an article headline give me a brief summary of the content? 33 Hilariously Absurd Feats That Movies Keep Trying to Pass Off As Legit. It sounds a little to … subjective. How do they know I’ll find it hilarious? What’s with the colloquialisms such as ‘legit’? Here’s what I found when I clicked:

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 9.28.25 PM

There are four advertisements on the page, and that’s just within the viewable area. The supposed article is little more than an amalgamation of screenshots with some text superimposed. It’s actually incredibly clever, because with every click of the Next button I’m served four or five new ads—and there are 66 slides (two per factoid).

This is a relatively well-constructed ad-machine. It tempts you with interesting trivia (who doesn’t like a new tidbit of information?), and then bombards you with advertisements. But then there are ones like this:

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 9.33.28 PM

This is absolutely dreadful, of course. Nearly everyone would recognize this as a clickbait article, but the funny thing is, they click anyway. (Note that I’m not providing links to any of these articles—your’e welcome.) This one wasn’t suggested for me—it was shared by a friend. A friend who fell for the bait. Here’s the website it takes you to:

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 9.36.49 PM

Wait, I’m sorry—was there supposed to be something to read there? The article itself is, when you get to it, rather trite, mundane (apologies to those involved because it does sounds like a kid was made happy for a few minutes), and poorly written. In fact, it’s entirely incidental. Articles like this flood the internet as padding for advertisements. No one wants to click on a page of ads, but they’ll happily click the ads on a page that contains even the tiniest morsel of titillating information.

The worst bit of all, though, is that supposedly reputable news sources are beginning to use this technique as well. They do it well, of course; here’s one from the BBC:

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 9.45.17 PM

There’s a headline that, to its credit, does give me some basic information about what the article is going to be about. There’s even an introductory topic sentence at the top. But the article, when you click on it, is nothing more than quotes and a brief video. There are less then 200 words of original text, and of those, 14% are quotes.

At least the BBC label their (few) ads clearly, but this is not news. Perhaps I’m being judgmental here (in fact, I’m sure I am), but this is pandering to the lowest common denominator. The BBC, whose other articles include headlines like “Rio Olympics 2016: US and NZ runners help each other” and “Ferocious US Fires Evict Thousands”, are better than this.

Luckily, I’ve found that the built-in News app on my iPhone actually serves—for the most part—reasonable, intelligent news articles that I’m often interested in reading. Here are the first five as of this writing:

  1. New Ford Virtual Reality App Puts Viewers At Le Mans – The Detroit News
  2. The Hazards of Lightning – Archive – The Guardian
  3. July Was Earth’s Hottest Month in Modern Times – Brief (Okay, this one’s a little iffy)
  4. Brazil Police Pull US Swimmers Fro Flight Amid Robbery Probe – Reuters
  5. Trump Reshapes Campaign In His Own Image – The Wall Street Journal

And the articles, miraculously, are ad-free! I tend to browse through the Apple News articles a couple times a week, but sometimes more often when I’m not working as hard. I find it entertaining and stimulating.

Sadly, I browse Facebook dozens of times a day. And so I get a lot more of my information from clickbait, and it depresses me. I’ve grown tired of my brain being overstimulated by involuntarily wanting to know what THIS is, or why I should avoid THESE 5 FOODS. I often contemplate shutting Facebook down entirely, but I still rely on it to manage my authorial work.

I suppose ultimately clickbait gets results, so I can’t exactly fault the webmasters for making the most of this technique. I think, rather, I wish that people were most intelligent so that solid, unbiased headlines became the norm again. But that might be a pipe dream.