Redefining Hate Through Weaponized Confusion,

A Thread I've been thinking about for awhile now.

But wrote because of this meme.
The meme above was posted by the Facebook page "Ladies of Another View." A BekNews show that is pretty predictably "anti-woke, anti-Leftist" in its content and perspectives. I, however, got it in my feed as the result of my family sharing it extensively.
Now, like so many memes, the comment might appear, on its face, to be innocuous. After all, who wouldn't want the freedom to question right? We should all be so logical, reasonable, and willing to debate.

But that's not what this meme is about. And they know it.
This meme is about the use of "I'm just asking questions" rhetoric to hide and to pretend that one is not spreading hateful and bigoted ideas under the guise of "confusion."
Now, thing is, the social media thread I had actually intended to write before now was specifically about the ways in which Conservative (US) media and pundits have actively fomented a definition of hate that allows this kind of subterfuge to happen.
In short, that Conservatives tend to define "hate" via direct emotional intent/action. And then use this definition to deny their role in perpetuating harm against marginalized identities.
Which is to say, that their idea of "racism" is specifically KKK/cross-burning racism. Their idea of "sexism" is 60's "barred from the workforce" sexism. "Homophobia" is imprisoning and executing gays.
Their idea of "hate" is purely the hate that overtly names itself. In a way, their idea of "hate" can almost be reduced to "rage with slurs." It's cartoonish. And as such, when it doesn't name itself in that way, the plausible deniability of "just asking questions" sets in.
In fact, this problem is at the heart of what John Oliver even went on to talk about here in his review of Tucker Carlson's method of "questioning" when it comes to white nationals and supremacists.
Basically, my point is, by defining hate solely as "angry, emotional, violence," Conservatives have managed to convince many of their viewers/voters that it is simply not possible for them to "hate" or ever be implicated in racism, sexism, transphobia, or bigotry.
Because as long as they aren't "intending" anything, they can paint all calls to action on systemic inequality as something that is specifically against them.

*They* are being wrongly accused. They are the persecuted party oppressed under the yoke of inequity.

Sound familiar?
Let's also add @ZackFord 's excellent thread on racism and the problem of "intent" to really drive the point home. https://twitter.com/ZackFord/status/1378015408230383625
And here is where weaponized confusion comes to the forefront. It's a veneer of innocence, a mask of ignorance, that is meant to say, "I'm not bigoted, and if I did a bigotry, I didn't mean it or understand it. Which is therefore not bigotry. I am blameless."
If it is not clear, this is not the same thing as someone who genuinely does not understand and has questions. We all get things wrong, we all struggle with systems that limit our agency, and we all share frustrations when we can't make the changes we desperately hope for.
But weaponized confusion is the performance of ignorance for the sake of presumed innocence by people who very, very, well know the difference. They KNOW what they are saying, but they play at virtue for the comfort of their audience.
It's the bad Devil's Advocate version of hate.

And it's spreading.
And if you are wondering how this same conversation is going with my relatives....well....
You can follow @Manigarm.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: