A Quick Reminder; Callout Culture

As tempting as it may be to blog during class, I consider it bad form. Also, unless you’re highly proficient at multi-tasking, you’re not really getting the material being covered while you blog.

On to another topic: callout culture, which is the practice of publicly denouncing the biases of others. Chelsea Clinton recently attended a vigil in New York for the victims of the mosque massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand. On her way there, students from a local university accosted her for being contributing to islamophobia. Her crime? Expressing support for a congressional resolution against anti-Semitism.

The logic of Clinton’s detractors is a thin potation of name calling and conspiracy theory logic. It points to a broader, identity-based cultural issue: the inclination to “shame” people for having opinions that differ from our own. I see it as something that cuts against the grain of our nation’s great experiment in democracy, which largely involves listening to a broad plurality of voices to find the great middle way that does the greatest good for the greatest number.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to A Quick Reminder; Callout Culture

  1. Khytavia Fleming says:

    Honestly, this is the world we live in today. I see nothing wrong with Chelsea voicing her opinion. Look at our president, he has said much worse. Ms. Clinton is entitled to her opinion and her detractors’ are entitled to theirs as well. I personally do not mind nonviolent detractors. It shows that people are actually listening and are not just hearing what’s going on in the world. Voices and opinions from each side of a topic/situation need to be heard. We can never come to a conclusion if the public does not hear both sides even if it is harsh, brutal, and lacks respect for the other party.

  2. X says:

    Clinton’s detractors’ actions are not excusable. However, it may be bad to use this one example as an argument against limiting speech. It is foolish to think that our nation has always protected free speech. Consider the case Schenck vs. the United States. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” While identity politics are not bad, I do not think that this public shaming problem is necessarily a bad thing at its core.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *