Consider two social media posts. One says the following:
I am going to say something many may find incendiary. Jewish supremacy is exactly the same as white supremacy.
The other says this:
Supremacy by any group over another is equally wrong no matter how the group is defined whether they be white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish.
These two posts can be interpreted to mean essentially the same thing. If the intent is to say that supremacy as a concept of one group over another is wrong in all cases, and that nothing else is meant or implied beyond this, then they are essentially equal statements. It is very unlikely, however, that they will generate the same reaction when read by others.
How people react to these types of social media posts first depends on whether the response is a rational response or an emotional response. A rational response would be to break down the meaning of the words and then to consider all of the possible ways one might react to the message in order to attempt to discern the intentions and meaning behind it. An emotional response obviously allows for the immediate visceral reaction to dictate the response and typically requires some sort of immediate value judgement based on the nature of the emotions felt. It therefore doesn’t get to the point of intention or meaning. It is pure reflex.
It seems somewhat evident that the first post would be more likely to elicit an emotional response than the second. Breaking down the posts provides several reasons why this could be true. At the most primary level, the fact that the preface warns the reader than the post could be controversial immediately puts the reader on a defensive guard stance. We are asked to brace for what’s coming next.
Having already braced for danger, the reader is confronted with what initially appears to make a comparison between two groups that would normally not only seem to not be comparable, but are usually seen as radically different in almost every way. One is a people who have categorically been marginalized, threatened, persecuted, and discriminated against throughout history right up until the present day. The other is none other than the primary group typically responsible for this abominable hatred and behavior.
Rationally, however, the second sentence doesn’t actually make this comparison. The comparison is not between Jewish people and white people. The comparison is between two different implementations of the ideology of supremacy defined here as the belief in the superiority of one particular group over another. In this context, the adjectives of “Jewish” and “white” are completely irrelevant to the actual intended meaning of the sentence.
This is not to suggest that a rational reaction is right and an emotional one is wrong. Reacting rationally with thoughtful consideration of the words does not guarantee that the writers intent will be perfectly understood. It does, however, have the ability to prevent an emotional response as an emotional response, if it happens, almost always comes first. It is closer to a reflex and usually does not entail the person reacting making a conscious choice to react emotionally. It is rare for someone to react emotionally to something they have already considered rationally. That usually requires learning additional information that conflicts with and invalidates the rational response.
The impulsive nature of an emotional response is what makes it more likely to result in misunderstanding. In fact, in order to know for sure that the true meaning and intent of the message is properly understood, an emotional response must eventually lead to a secondary rational response through contemplation. Without that, a person can never really be sure that they actually understood what the writer of the message meant.
Both rational and emotional responses share one key characteristic. They are both genuine reactions. In other words, they are reactions that both desire to actually understand the meaning and intent of the message. This is particularly true when an emotional reaction leads to a secondary rational response. It is this desire to understand that makes the person go beyond that first reaction to ensure for themselves that they did not misunderstand. This doesn’t guarantee that they get it right, but it is really the only way to get it right.
There is a third type of reaction, however, that is neither rational nor emotional. This is the disingenuous reaction. This reaction is dishonest as it comes from ulterior motives. Unfortunately, this reaction is all too common on social media. This is when someone seizes on the opportunity to attack the writer of the message with no intent of understanding what was meant or intended by the message. It is, in short, a bogus reaction.
The bogus reaction can come from several motivations. The person reacting may have a grudge against the writer or generally just dislike them for whatever reason. They may simply be one of the many online trolls who just like to cause mayhem and get a rise out of people. Most often, however, they come from political and/or ideological motivations. They harbor bogus grudges.
It is important to note that the bogus reactions are most often specifically meant to elicit emotional reactions in others and prevent people from having rational reactions. This is because the primary goal of a bogus reaction is to prevent understanding. The more people that can be riled up to react emotionally, the less likely they are to engage in rational contemplation about the message or the writer. This makes the bogus reaction a manipulative reaction. The goal is not to attack the message, but to encourage others to shoot the messenger. This means the target of the bogus reaction is not the message, but the writer.
In fact, this writer.
The comparison of the two posts at the beginning of this article is not a hypothetical one. I posted the first of the two examples above on Facebook. It should be known that at the time I was a four-time elected town council representative for my local small town. I was finishing my 8th and final year serving on the town council as I had decided not to seek reelection in the upcoming fall election.
Very shortly after the post became public, calls and emails started coming in to the town leaders expressing outrage and calling for me to be removed from the town council and for an ethics complaint to be filed. After a brief discussion with town leadership, I tried to calm the situation by offering my resignation. I didn’t want to have the next election framed around this issue whether I was running or not. I also didn’t want to cause further division in my home community which I love and have served as a volunteer for well over a decade.
In the days since all this occurred, I have been thinking about how and why this situation came about, and how often our social media posts are misunderstood both genuinely and disingenuously. I have also been thinking a lot about the phenomenon of cancel culture. Social media has been a wonderful thing for society in bringing people together, but it also has become yet another way for people to attack each other and divide people. It has also become a primary tool for those who would engage in the practice of cancelling people or ideas that they disagree with.
Here are the most common questions:
Why would I would take such a risk in the position I was in.
If you think you have something to say, you should say it. You owe it to yourself to do so. It’s never a risk if you are expressing your true beliefs even if they are misunderstood.
I have been asked why I didn’t just keep my profile private and limit it to just my friends and family.
For me, that destroys the best part about social media which is its ability to reach a wide number of people with different perspectives, different experiences, and different ideas. To become insular and retreat to my own little cocoon defeats that purpose.
I have also been asked why I didn’t retract my statement or simply delete the post.
The message of the post is one I still agree with. To retract or delete it would be dishonest. It would admit to agreeing with the misrepresentations of it being hateful or antisemitic. It would also eliminate the possibility of having an open and honest discussion about this issue and the problems surrounding it. In short, it would prevent any good from coming from this event.
I guess that means I am now officially a victim of cancel culture. I am one of the fortunate ones, however. There may be a few people in my town who look at me sideways in the grocery store or mumble things to their friends when they encounter me in a local restaurant, but frankly that isn’t anything new. My friends and my family are all solidly behind me. They know me and what I believe in and know that the kind of hatred I’ve been accused of is simply not in my nature. Other victims of cancel culture have been far less fortunate.
In an upcoming article, I will explore this in more detail and attempt to explain what makes this a textbook case of cancel culture. We will look at not only what cancel culture means in this context, but also how we might combat it. In the meantime, the lesson I’ve learned is that while terse social media posts may seem clever or pithy, they open the door to misunderstanding, and that can lead to people being hurt. In that my post hurt anyone, I am truly sorry. Next time (and yes, there will almost certainly be a next time), I will try to come closer to the second post example than the first in order to minimize any misunderstanding.
I have also been reminded, however, that there will always be bogus reactors out there just waiting for a misstep to pounce on. Unfortunately, that is the price we all have to pay if we want to swim in the ocean rather than wade safely in our own private pool. Swimming in the ocean may be more dangerous, but it can also reward us with a much greater adventure.
Hi Kevin, Thank you for your reply.
I've seen your most recent "On Being Canceled" newsletter, and I had a few additional points of feedback:
I think leaving your Facebook post up emphasizes transparency, which I appreciate and applaud. However, in your "On Being Canceled" newsletter you say, "To retract or delete it...would also deny the opportunity to have the important and difficult discussion that the post was originally written to provoke." I come back to the question of - what was the "difficult discussion" that you were trying to provoke?
Based on your reply to my comment, if you come to a conclusion that you really were thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some way, you should consider why you chose the word "Jewish" rather than "Israeli government". If you call out a purported negative characteristic of an entire religion when you were actually thinking about of the actions of a country's government where the majority of citizens identify with that religion - seems like there may be more unconscious bias at play than you realize.
As an example, about 73% of Israelis are Jews and about 65-85% of people in the US are Christians (the number of Americans who identify as Christians has been dropping and the number who consider themselves religiously unaffiliated has been growing; however, 85-90% of American say they celebrate Christmas, so I'm guessing most of those "unaffiliated" folks would be considered culturally Christian). When the US was involved in the Iraq war - how often were people pontificating about Christians attacking Muslims? Would that have been the most important lens through which to view this conflict? No, the conversations were about the US attacking Iraq.
And one last thought about this and your "On Being Canceled" newsletter. I fully acknowledge how upsetting and unsettling this past week must have been for you. You've dedicated so much time and energy into helping our town and this is such a sour note to end your many years of service on. You explain the role that local politics played in fanning the flames of this situation. And, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I fully agree that it is sadly typical for politicians to jump on any hint of an issue to denigrate their opponents.
However, my personal opinion is that you shouldn't be focusing your energy on any political vitriol that comes your way, and instead, if you feel the need to make any further responses on social media or write another newsletter, you should be thinking about the other people in your community for whom your post was a source of fear. Some of them reacted strongly in the comments to your Facebook post, but a lot of people didn't engage on social media and instead it was just another worrisome drop in the stream of antisemitism that seems to be rushing faster and faster towards the Jews in our community.
For instance, did you know that in November in Greenwich, a 'ten-year-old Jewish girl was punched in the face by another youth who cried “I can punch you because you are Jewish.'" Last May a 7th grade social studies teacher in Darien, "reportedly told students to write a paragraph about how German chancellor Adolf Hitler was 'good for the German economy,' and taught students how to draw a swastika". "In Oxford, two middle school students harassed a Jewish classmate by playing German marching songs and performing Nazi salutes." In November, a Jewish high schooler has a swastika carved into his locker.
If you do write further on this topic, I would suggest that you seriously consider whether what you say helps or hurts.
Hi Kevin,
Seeing this newsletter post, I was surprised that you were interested in continuing a conversation on this topic, then intrigued by the first half as I read through your points, and then disappointed by the conclusions you reached.
Since you say you promote “open and honest discussion”, here are my challenges:
“A rational response would be to break down the meaning of the words and then to consider all of the possible ways one might react to the message in order to attempt to discern the intentions and meaning behind it.”
It feels like you’re confusing the ideas of “rational” vs “logical”. One could, of course, approach your original post as if it were a mathematical logic problem, in which case your meaning of “supremacy as a concept of one group over another is wrong in all cases” is very clear. However, is it rational for a reader to assume that the writer is posting a sort of mathematical symmetric property? I would argue that it’s more rational to apply a basic reading comprehension approach that would (as you say), “attempt to discern the intentions and meaning behind it”.
“Having already braced for danger…”
I think you did a good job in this paragraph of capturing a typical or expected thought process of someone reading the post.
“The comparison is between two different implementations of the ideology of supremacy defined here as the belief in the superiority of one particular group over another. In this context, the adjectives of “Jewish” and “white” are completely irrelevant to the actual intended meaning of the sentence.”
If your adjectives of “Jewish” and “white” are completely irrelevant, then why use them? You yourself say that the “preface warns the reader than the post could be controversial” – you clearly wanted to say something provocative. Could you explain why decided to choose “Jewish” as your “irrelevant” example? For instance, why didn’t you choose “Mormon” or “Chinese”?
Coming back to the idea of a rational response – I agree that a rational response would “attempt to discern the intentions and meaning”, which I argue means looking at this in a real-world context. This was a real post that you made, not a theoretical logic exercise. Let’s image a reader (let’s call them Reader A) who stumbles across your post. For argument’s sake, let’s say Reader A is someone familiar with Jewish historical and current events and culture. Reader A is aware that there’s been a dramatic rise in antisemitic rhetoric and actions over the last year and a half, picks up on the fact that (as you later acknowledged in a comment on your social media post) the “specific phrase ‘Jewish Supremacy’ has been used in the past by white supremacists in an antisemitic way”, and sees that this is a stand-alone post that’s apropos of nothing and not part of any ongoing conversation you were having on social media. Based on these observations, it’s perfectly rational for Reader A to assume that the intention was to criticize Jews. Your post did not provide any additional context to remove any concerns of antisemitism.
Then let’s imagine two other readers – Reader B and Reader C. Reader B doesn’t know much about Jews. Reader B glances at your post comparing Jewish supremacy and white supremacy and may think, “Huh, I didn’t know Jewish supremacy was a thing. It sounds like it’s as big a problem as white supremacy. Maybe there’s something to that nonsense my family member was spouting about Jews trying to take over the world [one of the most wide-spread conspiracy theories].”
Reader C is someone who already has a negative opinion about Jews (about 1 in 4 Americans endorse anti-Jewish tropes). Reader C sees your post and is happy to see someone who shares their viewpoint.
I think you would agree that the outcomes of Reader A, Reader B, and Reader C seeing your post are all negative.
It seems like you’re claiming you were writing for an imaginary Reader D who should have treated it as the mathematical logic problem I referred to earlier. Do you think it’s rational to assume a social media post will only be seen and reacted to by people like Reader D?
“The bogus reaction can come from several motivations. The person reacting may have a grudge against the writer or generally just dislike them for whatever reason. They may simply be one of the many online trolls who just like to cause mayhem and get a rise out of people. Most often, however, they come from political and/or ideological motivations. They harbor bogus grudges.”
I have several disagreements with your commentary on bogus or disingenuous reactions.
Firstly, I agree with you that some of the reactions from your political opponents were probably “bogus”. I think it’s pretty typical for politicians to take advantage of their opponents’ mistakes to further their own agenda, so I’m not surprised.
Secondly, yes, online trolls who thrive on creating chaos and drama definitely exist. However, I think most of the responses you classified as “bogus” are actually “rational” but using “emotional” language. While your original post did get a large number of comments (compared to most of your other recent posts) – there were only 7 distinct individuals who actually commented (apart from yourself). It seems that all of the commentors are local residents, so none of them should be categorized as online trolls. I’ve already explained how the language of your post raised a very realistic specter of antisemitism. So it is perfectly reasonable for people to have an emotional, negative response when they see an elected town official making such a statement.
“It would admit to agreeing with the misrepresentations of it being hateful or antisemitic.”
I do believe you when you say that the way it was interpreted was not your intention and that you did not intend for it to be “hateful”. But, however unintentional, the post you wrote was antisemitic. I believe that you would not knowingly act in an antisemitic way. But we are all human and all have foibles and unconscious biases and make mistakes. None of us are perfect and none of us are aware of every single phrase that has roots steeped in bigotry. All we can do is listen, learn, and try to do better next time.
To be honest, I don’t think you wrote your post assuming all readers would interpret it like Reader D. Because if you had, that would have been a meaningless post. You could have just as well said, “Harassment by any group over another is equally wrong no matter how the group is defined whether they be white, black [n.b. it’s recommended to capitalize Black when referring to people], Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish” or “Murder is bad” or “You shouldn’t drink and drive”. Why would you say “many may find incendiary” if all you meant was “all people hav[e] equal value and deserv[e] equal respect” (from your comment on another of your Facebook posts)? What’s incendiary about that statement?
I believe that you had something else you wanted to say but thought cloaking it in the language you did would make it more palatable. I would bet that you had an opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but decided to be vague about it and refer to Jews in general instead. If you want to keep going down this path, rather than thoughtfully considering how you got to this point, I challenge you to write what you actually wanted to say, rather than a “pithy” one-liner or framing yourself as a “victim of cancel culture”.