On civil liberties and netizenship
As decreed by the Guardians of Hate Speech Promotion Front, the following are the laws dictating the facilitation of relentless hatred online:
1. No difference of opinions will be tolerated
2. All errors, regardless of the degree of their severity, shall be crucified and those committing them shall be dragged through the muddy tracks leading to our House of Hate Groups
3. Criticise with utmost brutality instead of working on narrow-minded views
4. Purveyors of constructive criticism will be prosecuted
5. Always bully like there's no conscience
Our motto: We love demotivating and bringing people down because it--
Woah, am I overwhelming you? Is all the outburst of negativity and pessimism getting to you?
I apologise, for this just might be one massive bitter pill to swallow. How about we sit down with a glass half full of water and a handful of sunflowers… to ease the blow?
We've only touched upon the surface of the hateful reality out there that's heavily propagated on social media. Let's dig in.
It's always hateful in the comments section
I thought I'd seen the worst when this random stranger in the YouTube comments section left a reply to my comment saying, "Go back to eating your curry ice cream Jameel. We know brown names like you are paid to do this." The comment in question consisted of about five terms: "We stan a quirky kween" followed by a harmless crying tears of joy emoji. Long story short, I was expressing my take on a video featuring wacky dancing, performed by one of my favourite comedians, Lilly Singh. The hateful response from the stranger was baffling. Of course, the mention of a non-existent food item is certainly questionable, but I truly became curious as to why a person who didn't know me would feel the urge to leave a scathing comment underneath mine because I'd written five light-hearted words for a video that was in no way problematic.
Let's consider racial prejudice as a factor here. With that in mind, we can deduce that this person consciously chose to spew racially-charged hate at me online, from behind the comfort of anonymity provided by a keyboard. That wasn't the last time I left a comment on YouTube. I simply grew used to the rude disposition so ungracefully sent in my direction with seemingly no provocation other than hate. As though right on cue, several other strangers jumped in with even more foul comments, words of which are normally bleeped out on audio.
I thought that was the worst.
Then, I befriended a group of ladies from Sylhet who'd all joined hands to form a Facebook group dedicated to challenging the patriarchal norms of our country. For a feminist like me, the group was a revelation, a breath of fresh air in a land choked by the toxic fumes of misogyny. I was overjoyed at having the opportunity to converse with like-minded Bangladeshis on human rights issues such as "the need for intersectional feminism". I didn't know then the price paid by the group admins for simply setting up an online handle that promoted equal rights in a developing country.
First, they were bullied in the comments section of public hate groups on Facebook. They were trolled with photos collected from their private accounts put up everywhere, expletives scrawled across their smiling faces. The aforementioned incidents were followed by unsolicited hate texts from fake accounts and strangers. These young ladies eventually discovered that known acquaintances were making snide remarks behind their backs.
I'd written "We stan a quirky kween" on a YouTube video of an Indian-Canadian woman.
My friends had opened a Facebook group to advocate for feminism in Bangladesh.
Let that sink in.
Wading into the treacherous waters of cancel culture
In July 2020, actress Jodie Comer was the target of a trending petition focused on "cancelling" her online. Comer's works on television have been generally subject to widespread acclaim, being well received by critics and the mainstream audience alike. She's been known to work in progressive projects that favoured feminist ideals and better representation. Which begs the question: why a woman of her acting prowess and popularity was being crucified in such a manner? She was allegedly spotted once standing alongside a civilian who's probably a Donald Trump supporter.
Emphasis on words "alleged", "once", and "probably".
Jodie Comer's agency was being called off because of a rumour that hardly had any truth to it.
For those unfamiliar with the concept of "cancel culture", it's a social media phenomenon that is said to have spiritually originated in the 1990s and aims to take away the public platform from anyone displaying offensive and toxic behaviour without remorse. Initially, the movement insisted on complete accountability from problematic figures supporting objectionable ideologies. But in recent times the movement has been exploited by hate groups looking to shut down conversations and healthy debates. People are joining in on the tirade of hate speech before sitting down to share facts first. All this has proven to be more of a distraction for netizens who then fail to take necessary action in real life.
While actual predators such as Matt Lauer and Kevin Spacey – with large numbers of credible accusations filed against them – go on with their normal lives, hardworking individuals like Jodie Comer are constantly on the receiving end of unwarranted online scrutiny.
So where should we draw the line?
Excellent question. Start with becoming more informed. Acknowledge the topics that are and aren't available for debate.
Encourage people to present their opinions about putting pineapple on pizza, reading Harry Potter as an adult, eating Madchef more than Chillox, and which direction a country's economy and politics are going.
Discourage differential opinions on issues like human rights, because those aren't debatable.
Become woke. Develop a morning diet of credible news. Put that to use. Advocate for intersectional feminism. Call out problematic behaviour when you see it, keeping in mind that the goal is to discuss and enlighten. The Guardians of Hate Speech Promotion Front are false prophets. The remorseful should be granted a second chance, and the hateful condemned by the law. Passing judgment on each other on social media can't be considered the equivalent of a fair trial.
The author accidentally poured Savlon on her head instead of her favourite essential oil. Teach her to properly differentiate between the two at [email protected]
Comments