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.

7 Responses to A Quick Reminder; Callout Culture

  1. random says:

    People are entitled to their own opinions, and should be allowed to express them, as long as they aren’t doing so violently. The people who accosted Clinton had their own opinion, as did Clinton, and both were not in the wrong to voice them. Although some people think that callout culture is wrong, I think it is a way for people to let others know their thoughts, whether good or bad. The people who actually say something are at least doing something to make change. The one issue I do see with callout culture is people strictly thinking what they believe in is right and not listening to what anyone else has to say. In this case, there is no way to reach a compromise. I think people should listen to what everyone has to say before making a decisions only based on what their opinion is.

  2. Bubba says:

    In my opinion, call out culture seems to be simply expressing the opinion of a group of people with hard emphasis. This is not a good representation of our government, nor is it healthy for our society. Even though Chelsea Clinton’s opinions might not be mutual to others, this should not have accosted her a crime. Even if their opinion is obviously different from the majority, it is their freedom of speech to express it. Publicly shaming someone does not benefit either sides. Detractors should listen to other people’s perspectives of their claim before aggressively attacking and shaming them.

  3. Xavier Lucas-Cooper says:

    The practice of callout culture is on one side hugely detrimental, but on the other, useful in order to bring to light issues that are present in today’s society. Callout culture is commonly used to publicly shame people over extremely trivial matters. This causes discourse between friends and even strangers through social media. However, the repeated use of callout culture can be utilized to bring attention to important problems such as climate change, racism, and human rights issues. Overall, callout culture is something that could be recognized as something that instills a sense of purpose and determination, but at the moment, it is widely known as something that people overlook because of the constant misuse of it.

  4. William Sutton says:

    I agree with E.T. on the topic of news media we often forget that the muck slinging that is staged on the news is just that- staged. We as people often forget that the news is still a TV channel in for the ratings and can slant any topic any way they wish to get the maximum amount of publicity. From raving tabloids, to Fox news, every area has a slant. Sure sometimes people do need to be seen for some of the incorrect things that they are doing but instead of taking action through compromise and working together for better appeal, our leaders, and our citizens, continue to insult others in ways that are legitimately ridiculous. The one thing that really hurts this topic is the use of assumed knowledge. Assuming anything is usually not the best way to gain information, but we as people use this and put our half-truth ridiculous assumptions on the big screen. These assumptions happen all the time and they are often always causal. For example just because someone supports the rights of the Jewish community, the must despise and the fear the Islamic community. Do we not see how these assumptions are tearing our country apart? Being a cop does not mean you hate people of color, Being a christian does not mean you must hate the LGBTQ+ community, being man does not mean that you do not care about women’s rights. But in the society we live in the next quick buck is made off of each of us hating and hurting one another.

  5. E.T says:

    This is a clear case of logical fallacies that permeate beyond the political scene into the primary method of discussion. Disagreements are expected of controversial issues, but they should not descend to a verbal battle of accusations and insults to discredit one’s opponent. The students, I believe, suffer from a common issue reinforced with social media: overexposure to polarizing viewpoints. With over $2.8 billion is spent on digital political advertising (Statistica 2019) and curated news feeds, many people live in a political bubble. People are more likely to read news that they attract their interest, oftentimes favorably and limiting those with opposing views. One CNN editor describes it as an “online echo chamber”. It’s an issue as we end up missing so much of other people’s opinions, especially the fundamental logic in arguing. Mentioned by X, people, especially our current President, have resort to ad hominems to shame others. Hopefully, politics and the state of our discussions improve in order to create postiive change for the public good.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 *