I've been online since before the net was public. Long before AOL, when it was mostly libraries and just a few colleges.
I remember when the net was "empty" and people could only be found in pockets of communities that were built around commonalities and curiosity. When if there were more than 10 people on at one time in the same online space, it was a real party. 🎉🤣
I've been a participant, a moderator, and an OP when that stood for operator, not original poster 🤣
1/
But even in the early IRC days when "channels" were introduced and those pockets of people grew from 5 people, to 10 people, to 50 people ... there were mods and OPs who set the tone for those communities.
When the first "channels" became a thing ... so did the beginning of weaponizing communities against individuals or other communities.
This kind of thing became pretty standard as the net grew and BBSes gave way to online forums and forums gave way to social networks ...
2/
You can't control individual people's actions perse, but I do believe that people with a tremendous amount of influence are responsible for the energy they put out into their communities and how that energy may give rise to fanaticism and intolerance.
If you put out rage, anger, and inflexibility, you will attract like souls who thrive on that energy and use it to justify their actions.
You create pockets of toxicity that only breeds more toxicity and people who spread it.
3/
I've watched this play out over the years in many ways LONG before organized social media networks existed ... when pockets of people would gather around a common theme or idea and one person was responsible for shaping, moderating, encouraging, and controlling that channel or community.
When the community you are in charge of, that you are the "figurehead" of, becomes a cesspool of fanatics who act negatively in your name or are inspired by the energy you put out ... that IS on you.
4/
I've been watching a couple of people - one a clinical psychologist and one who is just a "person with good intentions" - slowly weaponize their followers on Insta and it's been a fascinating and horrifying thing to witness.
These are people who I followed because they had great messaging originally and who were trying to teach and even do anti-Blackness work. But now ... as their following has grown, they have turned towards satisfying both their egos and the mob that idolizes them.
5/
Work that was originally about providing space and grace for others, about accountability, and finding tolerance and understanding, has become fanatical ideas about "us" and "them" and both communities have become places where if you don't agree with the sentiment then you are the enemy and you get attacked, bullied, and harassed by hundreds of thousands of people all acting from a deliberately "groomed" mindset.
A psychologist should know better ... but also knows HOW to control others.
6/
Anti-racism work can stem from anger and rage about the state of the world ... that goes without saying ... but using rage to defeat rage isn't the way.
Using violence to counter violence or grooming others in order to combat grooming ... is madness. This is the pit you have been staring into turning you into itself.
You cannot have grace for others when you teach your followers that anyone "other" is the enemy in ANY circumstance. It just creates a new kind of -ism that creates division.
7/
If you want your space to be open, inclusive, welcoming, and to encourage healthy discussion ... then you need to put that energy out yourself in how you express your thoughts and ideas.
If you are angry ... If you are hurt ... if you feel a sense of injustice ... then the path forward is one that should primarily involve healing ... not further destruction.
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘺. - Marcus Aurelius
9/
I see a lot of white people engaged in anti-racism work and while that's really commendable and necessary work, I also see this unfortunate attitude where they believe that being angry, hostile, and confrontational with other white people makes them better allies to BIPOC.
It actually doesn't and really makes things worse.
It's a kind of white saviorism that is more performative than effective and mainly succeeds in making non-BIPOC more RESISTANT to listening and learning.
1/
I do appreciate many white people's efforts to be more engaged in tackling issues of their privilege and the damage they do, inadvertently or otherwise, to the BIPOC community ... but mainly I just see them creating more harm trying to prove they are "good people" and "good allies" because they take the anger they feel and direct it outwards ... instead of using that energy to fuel healing for themselves and others.
If you want to change the world ... start first with yourself.
2/
Angry, negative, combative people aren't the kind of allies I personally want, but everyone is different.
Some Black people do want that energy from their white allies because it feels like they are commiserating or joining in the Anger Olympics.
I don't want that energy anywhere near me. It creates and breeds toxicity and that is just not the way in my opinion.
People can only ever be themselves, so do you ... but in my world, my space, and my feed ... that kind of energy has no place.
If you missed any part of this thread or simply want to revisit it later on, you can find it here
There is a concept in social psychology that refers to the mind as a "cognitive miser" ...
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦, 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘜𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘴, 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘴, 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨.
1/
Preferring shortcuts of automatic thinking over considered examination - or in Elaine-speak ... choosing lower order thinking skills over higher order thinking skills - allows people with limited computational, emotional, and psychological stability to process information more quickly, but also leads to some pretty horrendous kinds of errors in understanding the world, processing logic, and even engaging in rational, healthy conversations.
2/
The cognitive miser "type" has a very infectious hue especially in groups ... making it one of the primary foundations of mob mentality online.
There's been a TON of research which consistently shows that most people prefer conformity to controversy; their thoughts and behavior will be mostly dictated by the consensus of agreement around them.
3/
𝘊𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥—𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘥—𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺. 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘤𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘺, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘺. - Lynn Offermann
The cognitive miser "type" is a what I call a "communication impediment".
These are people who make real communication impossible because their minds don't allow for complete thought processes to occur.
Their brains actively reject anything that is beyond their limited computational, emotional, and psychological ability to process for a VARIETY of reasons including mental illness and especially trauma because it PHYSICALLY alters the brain and how it functions.
Choice isn't always a factor.
𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘓𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯'𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 "𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘖𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯", 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘈𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘩𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘩𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘵.
I disagree with this on a few levels, but I do believe that, especially in current times, more people are suffering from trauma than ever before which impacts their ability to cope as well as think.
Anyone who is a leader, figurehead, moderator, teacher, and/or influencer who DELIBERATELY takes advantage of the many traumatized people online who have impaired thinking and groom them into a weaponized mob ... should be held accountable ESPECIALLY if that mob goes around hurting and destroying the lives of others due to that grooming. They absolutely are responsible for the energy and messaging they put out into their communities.
@thewebrecluse I’m from the before days too. Four of us started a collective, it grew, online and then offline (It’s the story of how I moved to nc from MI). But it grew increasingly more cult like, and the original 4 eventually just shut it down. People were hurt, furious, it was hard.
My 2cents watching some online organizing today is that our structures, hierarchal leadership models, can become a tsunami that is destructive to those ideals. Knowing when to change is important.
Protecting your peace IS NOT the same as preaching intolerance.
Protecting your peace is about what you need to do for YOURSELF to stay healthy in body, mind, and spirit.
Preaching intolerance with rage (under the guise of "strength") to your followers is anger and hate and has nothing to do with peace.
If you set yourself up as any kind of OP, moderator, or leader of a community, you DO have a responsibility to consider what your "ideals" are creating and giving people permission for.
8/