When do we call a spade a spade?
Here’s something that I’ve been pondering for a while.
Whose responsibility is it, to hold those that say vile things accountable?
In the last couple of years it’s become more and more apparent that those who say harmful things often get an unquestioning platform - shock jock tactics lead to clicks, after all.
I often wonder what that means for the erosion of our values - what it means that we normalise toxicity, without calling it out.
For example, it is consistently troubling to me that a Boy King media narrative has persisted for the ACT party when there have been so many instances of troubling behaviour that are not held to account or subjected to criticism or questioning.
A pattern of toxic behaviour is a massive red flag in any relationship, whether between individuals or a relationship with the public.
It worries me that anyone espousing the virtues of ACT is blind to the clear problematic behaviour… and so implicitly (or overtly) endorses the clear problematic behaviour.
Which then led me to think that maybe, people genuinely don’t know.
So ACT serves as a good example for today’s musing, which is ultimately, well, when do we call a spade a spade?
I read about the Red Queen speech by David Seymour, and noticed how close the some of the content came to racist New Conservatives policies, (which were also homophobic, transphobic, and misogynistic, just to be clear.)
“That involves a blunt reality. Nobody is born special in New Zealand. There cannot be two types of people, tangata whenua, here by right, and tangata tiriti, here by the grace of the Treaty.
“We will need to remove the constant references to the Treaty from the law and replace it with a commitment to liberal democracy. It means removing co-governance structures from healthcare, from resource management, infrastructure, and education.”
- David Seymour
For my money, it’s similar positioning to the Freedom of Speech tours - designed to provoke and embed that feeling of “I’m being silenced!”
“This is a standard complaint of the right: the real victim is the racist who has been called a racist, not the victim of his racism, the real oppression is to be impeded in your freedom to oppress.”
- Rebecca Solnit
Sometimes we follow people who are invested in confusing saying hateful things with legitimate debate.
We follow those who make us feel like we’re part of a fight for an ideal world that is somehow being taken from us piece by piece.
We report those things uncritically, without calling out, for example, racism.
AP Style guide standards now quite clearly say “do not use racially charged or similar terms as euphemisms for racist or racism when the latter terms are truly applicable.”
The opinion of this pākehā, as someone who benefits from white privilege, is that I’d really like to see it written in any article reporting on politics that a racist statement made is racist. As a gay woman, I’d really like to see sexism, misogyny, transphobia and homophobia clearly called out as well.
Stoking fear, positioning the “freedom of speech” “it’s just debate” banner as safe harbour is absolutely deliberate.
Don’t fall for it.
You can’t both sides speech that is hateful.
You can’t both sides when the balance of power is firmly on one side.
You can’t both sides by positing an extreme, violent view as valid and therefore open to debate.
You can’t both sides when oppression is the goal.
Misinformation is defined as “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.”
At a very basic level, that’s what toxic behaviour is.
It seeks to be normalised, to be accepted, to be platformed, to be welcomed. It hides in antics, stunts, clownish behaviour that is laughed at or dismissed, all the while steadily working at undermining the things that matter and embedding harmful narratives.
It seeks to become so pervasive and all-consuming that anyone protesting it becomes the outlier.
Ultimately it is dangerous not to call a spade a spade.
I will leave you with some final thoughts from two men at different stages of a journey that history has proven has the potential to snowball, even though it might seem impossible. Conditions are good, though.
“The problem is not just that departments are sucking up more and more taxpayer dollars to achieve very little. They actually do even more damage trying to keep themselves busy.”
“We would ask every department to answer the simple question; if you didn’t exist, who would notice and why? I suspect whole departments would go.”
- David Seymour
“You know, I go to Washington and I see all these politicians, and I see the swamp. And it's not a good place. In fact, today, I said we ought to change it from the word swamp to the word cesspool, or perhaps, to the word sewer.”
- Donald Trump
Ideally these men should be muzzled because like some dogs they are dangerous. Unfortunately it is only after the dog has followed its natural instincts and killed that it can be put down. Harder is the fact that some dog owners refuse to accept their pet may be dangerous. Even harder is the fact that muzzling human beings before they kill requires the suspension of human rights. I suppose the trick is to wait for the Trump's and Seymour's (a gad fly in comparison and he does not scare me as much as the Tamaki evangelist ) to overstep and cause widespread social disruption. Trump has done this and Tamaki has come close. Hopefully we will hear less about those 3 men post-covid which disease has given them a platform. Let's predict that ACT will wither and die under the 5% threshold next year. Hopefully National will not give him any accommodation