Rant

Extracts from Katherine Cross's Log off: Why posting and politics almost never mix. Pasted verbatim.

It’s worth taking a second to define weaponized sincerity. Weaponized sincerity is where extreme takes are born. It’s a mode that deploys ever more esoteric manipulations of social justice concepts for the purpose of being edgy or controversial, while still earnestly pursuing some noble idea. It’s the 0-to-60-in-two-seconds-flat acceleration of an innocuous bit of posting into a mass callout. It’s being nebulously accused of being X-phobic or silencing Y-group or being imperialist when all you were doing was, for instance, delivering chili to your neighbours.

One evening in 2022, a relatively prominent lefty Twitter user posted the following:

several guys moved in next door, students I guess. and I’ve gotten two confused door-dash drivers for them in the last week, and their trash can was completely overflowing with pizza boxes. i don’t think they cook. i am feeling such a strange motherly urge to feed these boys... They’re incredibly quiet which is a real surprise. I dunno if they’re renting or what but I would like them to stick around. Maybe I will make a big pot of chili this weekend when it gets cooler.

This, somehow, ignited a firestorm. She was accused of coddling “manchildren,” of being “presumptuous” or otherwise rude, of ableism for ignoring potential allergies, and of being a white saviour.

"For the love of god, stop babying men. This is why they learn to take advantage of their wives" went one tweet, apparently blaming this woman for the endurance of sexism and unequal marriages. Another tweet read, in part, "The intent was good, right? No. It was presumptive and stereotypical [white people] shit."

The harassment went on for days.

It was a flaming gout of internet rage that reached into the stratosphere of the mainstream press. Even the Washington Post reported on the controversy — and it got its money’s worth from the world’s most efficient content farm. The article wasn’t just a news report; it was an advice column. WaPo food reporter Emily Heil used the incident to ask etiquette experts for their opinions on how best to share food with strangers.

The social media food fight left us exhausted but also wondering: Have the rules for giving home-cooked foods changed? Does the simple act of baking a casserole or cookies for a stranger have to be so fraught? We asked two experts for guidance.

Imagine the horror of having such an innocuous post lead to three people you’ve never met dissecting your behaviour in the pages of a national newspaper.

In the event, the leftist in question delivered the chili, it was well-received, and the young men helped her fix a fence. Outside the swirling cyclone of Discourse, a rather ordinary and charming exchange took place. On Twitter, this pot of chili had to be saddled with the unbearable weight of some of the most important issues of our time. Even a Le Creuset can’t hold that.

But, worst of all, because most of the Washington Post’s newsroom is on Twitter, they made this sorry spectacle into everyone’s problem. Even New York City’s Fox affiliate got in on the action, with an article entitled “A Chili Controversy? Neighbor’s Good Deed Draws Online Outrage.” Their source was the Washington Post.

I’m talking as if weaponized sincerity was the opposite of shitposting, its natural enemy. And in one sense it is. But, like all true opposites, it’s also a twin. Weaponized sincerity is the horrible second helix that wraps around irony culture, feeding off it and nourishing it in equal measure.

BTW while looking for this I found out she also defines sincerity like this:

One of the things I really can’t forgive social media for is how deeply it has corroded our sense of sincerity, making it uncool to care.

The one rule, if you can call it that, is to not appear to take anything seriously. Sincerity is anathema to shitposting.

So, all in all, I can figure she draws a continuum from irony culture, like people "so deep in layers of irony they don't know who they are anymore" to weaponized sincerity, like, people who will take everything literally to the exteme of its political and ideological severity. She seems to be placing "real" sincerity to a point closer to the center than its "weaponized" counterpart. But I am no expert, I just have seen this happening over lemmy and it clicked, so I think she is onto something.

Also a disclaimer, I am personally more on the weaponized sincerity side.

I did a cursory search but couldn't find too much on weaponized sincerity or Cross' writings on that. The best I can make out from what you wrote, is that weaponized sincerity is someone's act of goodwill getting contorted or (charitably) misinterpreted by others as an injustice upon them. You can tell me if I got it wrong.

Balanced people tend not to burn time and emotional energy on politics for free, basically. Yes, I know that's a self-own.

As someone who’s literally currently writing a book/philosophy called Philosophy of Balance this one struck a chord 😅

But you are right, I’m burning a lot of time and energy on exactly this and I feel it makes people wary and skeptical of what’s wrong with me… When really, I don’t think anything is wrong with me now. Hasn’t always been like that though, so if I can help others ease their struggle by writing about my own, I think that’s worth it.

If a neo-nazi says they want to push neo-nazi policies in the name of defeating Trump, nope, still not letting them in the tent just because they said they’re trying to beat Trump.

Boy, it sure is good that we're talking about exactly that, and not some totally different scenario.

We have almost four years to find a better nominee than Gavin Newsom. I am positive that we can do better than him.

Sounds great. I think OP's point (my point certainly) would be that as a random example, these people seem to spend lots and lots more time shitting on Democratic or leftist politicians than they do on trying to find someone better. Gavin Newsom? POS. Graham Platner? War criminal. Bernie? Zionist. AOC? Genocide supporter.

So who do they support? Why don't we hear them trying to rally support for those left-wing people instead (except when it comes around to the general election and they suddenly get super-passionate about voting third party because the Democrats haven't earned my vote, red line, lesser evil, and so on.)

And I'm okay with your example, that would be to me best described as "even if it was for reasons you would like (defeating Trump) he did actions you think are bad (neo-Nazi-like, and specifically transphobic)". Like you can say that Newsom shouldn't belong in the Democrat tent because of this or that, but if he proposes housing policy that you think would be helpful, either link a material reason as to why his transphobia, previous deed or other negative quality would taint this proposal. Otherwise say something "I like this policy ...even if I don't like him" or "...even if he's a shitbird neo-lib transphobe" or "...even if he's probably just doing it to run for a future Presidency" or "...though most of the credit should go to the CA Assembly".

In a more extreme hypothetical, if Trump were to somehow get Grok or ChatGPT to slop out a universal US healthcare policy document that has comprehensive detail, I might applaud the plan itself on its merits, but of course I know Trump is a pathological liar, changes his mind all the time, his administration is full of idiots too evil and incompetent to implement it, and Republican, big pharma and insurance donors will never let that get off the ground and so I'd have little trust in that happening. But I would say "Trump, as much as I despise him, had a good idea for once that Democrats could actually try implementing for real", or "he's probably going to say the opposite after a quick chat with Perdue" instead of "I don't like this plan only because it came from Trump". Discourse would be better if we could separate the words/actions from the speaker, at least to start, but say why that speaker or a relevant larger context makes the words/actions unreliable if that's the case.

Came to comment and you stole all of my thunder! :)

Ah yes, if you kick everyone else out you can guarantee there's only one toxic person in the room.

The nice thing about this philosophy is that it's self-limiting, and so I don't have to worry about it.

I appreciate the perspective, I understand and totally support the moderation policy of beehaw and blahaj zone. I do think it is good to have a tough stance and a no-tolerance policy of bigotry, abusers and jerks against the group you are trying to create a safe place to discuss for. Though I don't know what you mean by defender here.

What I'm trying to get at though, is about avoiding the assumptions and jumps to conclusions that people make in policy discussions. While I recognize this can come from real trauma inflicted on people in past interactions, that prevents real progress towards helpful solutions. Other replies have provided good examples.

We do need to root out problematic behaviour, but separately we also have to re-discover solidarity if the aim is to form a political bloc or movement that can accomplish things. I posit that creating and maintaing a safe space is an equally valid but not quite the same aim--one needs more focus on reducing infighting than the other.

Progressives want to fall in love. Conservatives fall in line.

On that topic you're quite right. One PAC was funding contradictory messages about Kamala Harris' stance on Israel, targated at Jewish and Muslim populations.

There probably are a handful of propagandists here, but I start with the presumption that almost everyone engages with good faith until shown otherwise. Anyway, that's why I'm calling for nuance in my rant, which could help combat assumptions formed from propaganda.

It was indeed very bad for the democracts to support Israel so staunchly. This is the problem with the US 'left'. They're not really left, they're neoliberal. Money is all that matters to them.

You really need a real left there.