I’m going to explain this as calmly and rationally as I possibly can, for those who still don’t understand.
Using pictures of charred, mutiliated and decapitated foreign bodies as a westerner, a first worlder or someone otherwise generally not exposed to such a reality doesn’t make you brave, or radical. On the contrary, relying on such shock imagery exposes a weakness and insufficiency in being able to respectfully report on the complex geopolitical matters concerning war, which means that you shouldn’t discuss such matters to begin with. It doesn’t take anything but a google search of “dead Yemeni” or “Af/Pak drone strike victim” to render such photographs, especially not a reasoned comprehension of the science and politics behind calculated warfare.
You rob war victims of their autonomy, personhood, consent and lives previous to political instability when you post them bloodied or battered or dead. You make them, their nations and nuanced stories one-dimensional, which insidiously plays into the “primitive, war-stricken brown/black people” trope. You present their lives for them to the world, without understanding how they would’ve wanted it narrated. Intentional or not, there is a serious savior/imperialist complex with those who believe its within their right or capability to select photographs or brief snippets off the internet and essentially give an unsolicited account of another human being’s tribulations, of which they’ve never met, lands they’ve never visited and lives they couldn’t possiby comprehend.
Also, death is a serious consequence of war, but its hardly the only one. What most don’t seem to understand or give enough consideration to about war is that its ramifications can last several generations, whether it be through desertifed soil and subsequent food insecurity through combat, radiation to food and water due to aerial bombing and undiscovered/exploding landmines. In addition to various injuries sustained, mental illnesses, such as PTSD, GAD and depression that afflict those who survived are also a very underappreciated consequence. There are so many facets of war that hold serious weight that can be displayed without dehumanizing those affected, which are also, to no surprise, severely neglected.
War is a serious, complicated and heavily politically charged catastrophe. Without prior/proper resources and knowledge, simply posting violent and exploitative images of full fledged persons with no context or understanding is counteractive and immensely disrespectful and demeaning to the parties involved, seriously.
3 people stealing the same bike [video]
entirely fed up with this world
Seriously, the DRASTIC change when it was the black guy…
They nearly angry-mobbed his ass, IMMEDIATELY.
If you’ve never seen this video, watch it NOW.
Then tell me racial discrimination and criminalization aren’t a thing. They even had to older black women attacking the black guy. Saying it was more likely he was a thief.
Self reblogging to add a thing I found:
The account @Anti_Racism_Dog didn’t last long. Twitter suspended it quickly, a fate reserved only for the most aggressive, abusive and hateful users. What could a dog – an anti-racist one, at that – do to deserve it? @Anti_Racism_Dog had one real function: to bark at racist speech on Twitter. The account responded to tweets it deemed racist with the simple response ‘bark bark bark!’ Sometimes it would send wags to supporters but that was pretty much it.
For the short time it lasted, it was amazing to watch how people reacted to @Anti_Racism_Dog. The account would respond mostly to what the sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva would call ‘colour-blind racism’, that is, racisms that are generally right-libertarian in orientation and justified through appeals to supposedly objective discourses like science and statistics. It’s a notoriously insidious white-supremacist ideology, a virulent strain evolved specifically to resist anti-racist language. Colour-blind racism defends itself by appeals to neutrality and meritocracy, accusing its adversaries of being ‘the real racists’. Although its moves are predictable, they’re hard to combat rhetorically since they’re able to ingest the conventional opposition scripts. Colour-blind racists feed on good-faith debate, and engaging with them, especially online, is almost always futile. But when they’re barked at by a dog, one whose only quality is anti-racism, they flip the fuck out. They demand to be engaged in debate (‘Tell me how what I said was racist!’) or appeal to objective definitions (‘The dictionary says racist means X, therefore nothing I said was racist’), but @Anti_Racism_Dog just barks.
@Anti_Racism_Dog inverted the usual balance of energy in online dialogs about race. Precisely because the dominant global discourse is white-supremacist, it is rhetorically easier to make a racist argument than an anti-racist one. Look at almost any comment thread or discussion board about race and you can see anti-racists working laboriously to be convincing and to play on their opponents’ ‘logical’ turf, and racists repeating the same simple lines they were taught (‘I didn’t own slaves’, ‘I’m just stating the facts’, ‘The Irish were persecuted too’, etc.) ‘Trolling’ as a certain kind of internet harassment is tied to time: the successful troll expends much less time and energy on the interaction than their targets do. It’s the most micro of micro-politics, an interpersonal tug of war for the only thing that matters. But have you ever played tug of war with a dog?
A true troll doesn’t have a position to protect because to establish one would leave it vulnerable to attack, and playing defence takes time. @Anti_Racism_Dog, by fully assuming the persona of an animal, was invulnerable to counter-attack. You can’t explain yourself to a dog and you look like an idiot trying. The only way to win is not to play but this is the colour-blind racist’s Achilles Heel: they’re compelled to defend themselves against accusations of racism. It’s the anti-racist argument that gives them content; theirs is an ideology that’s in large part a list of counter-arguments. After all, white-supremacists are already winning – their task now is to keep the same racist structures in place while making plausibly colour-blind arguments against dismantling them. @Anti_Racism_Dog was empty of anything other than accusation and so left its targets sputtering.
The account served a second purpose: as a sort of anti-racist hunting dog. @Anti_Racism_Dog quickly attracted a lot of like-minded followers who understood the dynamics at play. Whenever it would start barking at another user, this was a cue to the dog’s followers to troll the offender as well. There’s only so much one dog can do alone. Colour-blind racism is particularly dangerous because it isn’t immediately visible as such. It provokes good-faith discussion from liberals about what counts as racism, muddying the water. But @Anti_Racism_Dog’s strategy draws new lines about what constitutes acceptable discourse on race, placing colour-blind racists on the other side by speaking to them like an animal. What would be taken as totally insane in flesh space can be infuriatingly clever online.
THIS ARTICLE HAS TEETH
I WANT ANTI RACISM DOG BACK
fuck twitter Im going to go delete mine
useless piece of shit it is
LET’S MAKE A NEW ONE.