I read an article tonight from Laura Kennedy, and wanted to share a response. I’m not a subscriber, and a comment wouldn’t really be the right context for this sort of response, so here’s my attempt at a reply in a Post.
Some of the points Laura makes are:
That the situation is complicated, and people should think carefully and develop opinions before sharing hot takes
That talking online is not as effective as we’d like
That failing to condemn something or share an opinion on a topic does NOT mean we tacitly support it
That its rude to demand that people give you their opinion on a topic
That it’s the author’s choice what to write about, for any reason
I agree with these points.
However, there are some other points woven into the article that, interestingly, infer or articulate a stance on Gaza (even if it’s not comprehensive), while claiming their column “avoids” the topic. These are the payload I’m interested in, and I think they are too (which is why they posted their article).
Laura makes statements that their platform wouldn’t make sense as a way to talk about Gaza (while talking about Gaza), by listing disclaimers like:
Their “small” 20k following is not big enough to warrant talking about the topic. This is inferred but is quickly distracted from, when they say they loathe the “therapized” woke language of “holding space” for something, instead.
Personally, I think the size of the publication is irrelevant. ~20k is orders of magnitude larger than my 20 subscribers, and here I am.
That using an online platform to “raise awareness” for causes, like BLM or global conflicts are often ineffective (paraphrased, their words are far more harsh than this).
They later expand on this by talking about opinions being shared on the internet, and infer that takes need to have “unique angles,” or be “done better” than each other.
This comparison/competition lens may come from an industry perspective as a professional column writer, but I don’t think it’s necessary for all writing online. This must be important for their column audience, but then, in that case, I wonder why they mention Child Labour and Sex Offenders off-hand as punchlines in other posts, without any in-depth angles. There seems to be something special about Gaza - after all, it did make their headline.
That they are a free-thinker, incorruptible by group-think consensus, and that people asking their stance on Gaza is a “bad faith question” because it infers an audience mirroring expectation/paradigm
This is interesting, and I’d read more of this in a standalone post. However, this post was about Gaza, and the dynamics of how the question is asked and their relationship to their readers is tangential to me, as someone who is not in their community. Including it here felt like a way to discredit the question, so I’ll just say here that I think it’s a natural question to ask someone with a platform today what their stance on Gaza is, especially if you’re going to turn around and write a meta-post about it. Your readers want to know.
Then there was the most significant line, which helped me understand their stance on Gaza:
“I live with someone who has significant expertise in the Israel/Palestine conflict and its complex history, so I know what I don’t know. I’m not one of those people who will pledge fealty to a cause and when asked “from which river to which sea”, be unable to deliver the answer.”
That brought it all home for me. The appeal to expert authority. The shaming of people who may not know the exact geography of the region. Having been in discussions about the basic humanitarian situation, children being murdered, and having people question my “expertise” - this is the reason I decided to write this post. Because, frankly, I am exhausted by this lame excuse, that you need to be able to draw a topographical map of a region in order to state that you hope the conflict ends. I find it reprehensible as a human to appeal to some deeper level of nuance, of expertise required, in order to have any sort of stance on a situation as grave as millions of people being displaced, bombed, and starved to death.
We do not need to be experts or have PhDs on this subject to take a position, and our positions as individuals do not need to be comprehensive solutions. Sometimes, they can just be human responses (like fear, concern, or hope). The fact that this post attempts to shut those down, by appealing to authority and comprehensive Right Answers, erodes our ability to figure this kind of thing out, or even survive it.
At the very least, one could say they would like the war to end, or to hope for reduced suffering. The author does not make those basic points, as they would not satisfy their stated need for “unique angles.” Maybe they want to talk about this from a safer position, later. When a book is written about it by the victors, and it’s convenient for them. Or allude to it in a post Not-About-Gaza, throwing Red Herrings and Straw Men about woke language to distract, while they showcase the privilege of “avoiding talking about Gaza” while benefitting from the traffic and attention on their newsletter, talking about Gaza.
If you really need more time to develop an opinion, or you don’t want to write about a topic, that’s fine. But don’t pretend to Not-Write about something while contributing noise and suggesting the people raising awareness on their “small” platforms are not effective. Sometimes, taking a stance is about being raw, and showing your humanity, rather than being right, or targeting woke language. I’d rather read any stance conveyed than see another Post like this pretending to avoid the issue by discrediting those of us who are taking any stance, or are genuinely asking questions.
If you want to be silent, then be silent.
If you want to be silent, be silent - I love this. Exactly yes.
This is beautiful. “We do not need to be experts or have PhDs on this subject to take a position, and our positions as individuals do not need to be comprehensive solutions. Sometimes, they can just be human responses (like fear, concern, or hope).” I think often about how I was cut off from my humanity in my over-intellectualization-era and how easy it is to diminish someone calling out their lack of expertise. So cutting, so dangerous.