Acts of terrorism in Paris generated online response that while at first was patriotic, uniting and in condemnation of terroristic acts—eventually took a turn from respectful to vilification of those that expressed grief, solidarity or support from some on social media.
The hash tag [Expletive]Paris was created by some #BlackLivesMatter movement supporters, condemning public support for focusing on the loss of life of the 127 people during the Paris terrorist attacks in mid November, opposed to the movements at college campuses like Yale, who oppose racial discrimination and most importantly, offensive costuming.
Facebook was quick to offer a service for Parisians to “mark themselves safe” from the terrorist attacks of the day. Personally, I was relieved. I had gone to bed when the death toll reached around 44 after a stressful day. I was concerned for my friends in Paris and around France.
To me it was reminiscent of September 11, except now I am 14 years older at 21. Instead of being at home on the pullout couch recovering from a massive surgery with my mother when the news came on and the footage came across the screen of the television. My mother immediately called everyone in my family and there was so much confusion and sheer disbelief and sadness and that day echoed it back to me even all the way in America. Many in the country felt similarly.
When I woke up, I checked social media and through Facebook I thankfully saw each of my friends had marked themselves safe.
Along with this, Facebook created a temporary profile filter that covered the user’s current photo with the colors of the French flag, in the order they appear, transposed.
A few days after the massive amount of people who changed their photos in support, grief or any other notion, some reverted their images back. Why? Well, it was politically incorrect to express your emotions in response to the image. I saw plenty of opinions espoused and directed at these people essentially shaming them.
According to these #BLM supporters, people only cared about the tragedies in Paris because France is a “white” country, thus being fueled by white supremacy. Users of the hashtag criticized these people using hashtags like #JeSuisParis for only caring about terrorism and loss of life because it happened to “white people.”
Obviously those comments are amusing to anyone who has been to Paris in the past 15 years. Many users called for the same amount of attention to be paid to the issues at Yale and Mizzou.
The day was horrifying, filled with two earthquakes, a funeral bombing in Iraq, and more attacks in Syria. In today’s society, you can no longer express emotions or even grief. GRIEF is offensive and grounds for criticism.
Why? Because if you express sentiments for anything specifically, you are attacked for not responding to EVERY event that happens, at any point, anywhere. There is too much information to be socially responsible for responding to, yet the consequence for not doing so is often ostracization. You should not feel responsible for, or for emotionally responding to every plight or concern. You are one person and are better off living your life and starting with yourself.
Our age is the only age in which people have volunteered their persons to criticism and their criticisms to persons at such a massive forum. Everything someone does, in my generation, is catalogued on his or her social media.
Facebooked, tweeted, Instagrammed, Vined, YouTubed… all of these have comment sections. We seek reactions from people voluntarily, and we have allowed this century of rapid informational discourse technologies to shape our identity and inner selves.
The point is, we have passed the tipping point. It is now commonplace to have what I call the modern image obligation. With the entire Internet just seconds away with a post, picture or comment, the frame in which we both express ourselves and relate to others has changed dynamically.
There is a sense of maintenance required that is tagged along with the modern identity. It is causal to do something, even as basic as eating and to snapchat, Instagram or really put it on any social platform. Everyday tasks that others have never bothered to pay attention to have now entered the grounds for public commentary.
It is certainly fair to say every generation has had activities and cultural customs that relate to identity and interaction. I do not dispute that. However, the informational age has allowed for such a vast influx of otherwise useless or non-significant information that what is “public” now includes the formerly mundane monotony of the day-to-day routine.
The routine has now become much more of a status, figuratively and literally on social media. This creates a tangible sense of social discomfort, pressing the urge to conform to the reactions to others. Even if these others are simply strangers on the Internet.
The significance of the way social media has changed society cannot be understated. When crisis workers handle problems with children, and bullying in particular, the first thing they tend to advise is that all social media is cut off entirely. Subjecting children to the judgment of countless peers and to the extension of the Internet has empirically harmed children.
The Internet for better or for worse has provided a platform for voices of all positions to speak out. However, this directly relates to the media and vocal minorities. I never met anyone upset by the Starbucks faux controversial cup. Fake controversy after fake controversy is cooked up by groups with agendas and is exaggerated to control public opinion. This is not new, propaganda has existed for centuries, and for centuries it has been effective.
However now, as a consequence of these effects, the force of public opinion has uniquely found its way into the business of selective silencing of the opposition.
“Tolerant” has come to mean quite the opposite of tolerant to many preaching for its necessity. This has very real impacts on how we socialize and function as groups of people in societies.
The impact of the politically correct movement is to the point where it’s appropriate on even the campuses of our highest educational institutes to believe that a person’s race qualifies them to speak on a subject or to be disregarded and silenced. Events on campuses have specifically prohibited the presence of persons based on their perceived race, sex or political viewpoint. But discrimination and quite possibly the most blatant infractions to our very Constitution are allowed, so long as it’s in the name of a “safe place” or “diversity” and those that are ostracized are at least perceived white.
Which leads to the only point I could sincerely hope to make, although there are some social movements I even agree with, there is no rhyme or reason to feel the need to politicize every waking moment of your person.
I can assure you that although it may feel gratifying to see a hundred likes on your status about racial equality, almost the entire West agrees with you. The notion of equality is not unknown nor an unaccepted principle here. It is one of the most supremely contingent ideas of the Western world. Perhaps it is not the West that needs this message the most, and perhaps 140 characters is not the best avenue for it.
So for the love of God, please do not feel the need to go on your Facebook, full of 95% of people that accept these principles already, and feel the need to inject your negative cynicism into their life simply because you want to feel high off your sense of moral superiority.
You may not notice it, but others will. If you habitualize anger, it will bleed into the rest of your being. You will be up in arms your entire life and never appreciate peacetime. You will notice only that which evokes the emotion from you and ostracize the good.
Realize how channels affect your message and relate to your sense of identity and purpose for communicating.
Screaming at one another is just souring your relationships with others and how your persona is interpreted. I can guarantee that if all you post are “problems” they are similar enough to complaints that people will associate you with your content.
After all, if it is your prerogative to be adversarial, you will be treated as an adversary on many occasions—even on those in which you are an ally.
If everything you give the world is just something someone has given you, you will lose all sense of yourself; being tricked into giving your individuality up entirely.
The widespread optics of such sincere and pressing issues has done many things. One of which is to polarize communities, the other of which is to desensitize the entire world.
Struggles are more visible than ever before thanks to the medium, but at the same time, the massive conflations of the non issues that generate public opinion detract from the reality of deeply concerning issues like terrorism and the resulting loss of life.
Those grief-shaming the flag-profiled photo are quick to presume or accuse the flagged profiler of simply only caring about Paris, the Independent’s so and so going so far as to say those who support France are supporters of colonialism, instead should first ask themselves: “Do I pay enough attention to the news to criticize or assume the thoughts of others?”
If the first response the internet has to the loss of life is “well other things are also bad” or to find a problem with something so simplistic, and they’re not an edgy teenager, but a fully grown, “educated” and functioning adult, I have a sincere concern for the depth of thought people are capable of having.
The Internet’s revolutionary means of giving us information from all over the world in mere seconds has over stimulated us. The ugly reality is that absolutely terrifying and horrific situations are a regular occurrence in a world of 7.6 billion unique persons. If we were truly sensitive to every tragedy and plight, I assure you we would be completely incapable of accomplishing anything good or just.
We are equipped with the biological capacity for empathy and understanding as individuals, we are not equipped to relate to 7.6 billion other organisms or to fathom their struggles or their despair.
The best we can do, while functioning ourselves, is empathizing with what we can in the ways that we can. For some, it is participating in small notions of unity like creating a display in remembrance of the Paris tragedies or saying they’ll stand with France in this tough time. If your first response is to judge someone so harshly on something so small, you may need to broaden the scope in which you see the world around you.
A loud voice from the people is composed of the many softer sounds of each unique person. However, should you resort to saying anything just to make a sound, it is worse than having said nothing at all.
Barton Kleen
Managing Editor