A friend once chatted me out of the blue with an accusation like, “Stop making me look like an asshole!”  This is a friend with whom I had no recent interactions, so my mind naturally raced to find the offending reference to him; I found none.  However, I didn’t deny that I did it, I don’t remember doing it.  My disposition leaned towards the apologetic while I continued to chat to determine the source of the offense.

As it happens, the post that offended my friend did not refer to him directly.  It didn’t even refer to a particular political party or even group.  It simply referred to a behavior.  I posted a link to this article, with the following comment:

This is the definition of homophobia:
“dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.”

Here’s an idea, if you don’t like being labeled homophobic, maybe you shouldn’t pass laws that are prejudiced against homosexual people.

It’s quite literally what it means. Either own the fact that you are homophobic or repeal the law; I’d prefer the latter.

And my friend, who has no objections to laws discriminating against homosexuals, took exception to the label “homophobic”.  Dare I ask what do you think the word means?

The social acceptance and assumptions

This friend and I have talked about several different topics.  Truthfully, we disagree about many of these subjects, and that’s okay.  I enjoy having a conversation where someone challenges my position.  One day, we discussed a particular topic, and his response surprised me a bit, “How can you believe I’m like that?  I shouldn’t have to say anything.”  I’m not entirely sure if he imagined that I saw him as some sort of troglodyte.

Here’s the blunt truth.  He opposes the legalization of gay marriage.  He once voiced distaste for women working as construction workers.  Neither of those ideas aligns with my moral compass.  When it comes to his position on whatever other topic, I’m not a mind-reader and can’t hope to divine his opinion.  As my friend, I’ll generously assume that he has a good reason for his position (and can defend it), but I won’t assume that we’d necessarily agree on any one topic.

If I followed his reasoning, I wouldn’t have assumed that he opposed gay marriage or women construction workers, except that he does.  On the next topic of discussion, forgive me for asking about your position on the subject, but until I get a response I won’t definitively know.  This friend continues to be part of my social network.

Friendships introduce a nuanced complication to ‘filling in the blanks’.  If you allow someone into your ‘friend’ circle, then you presumably like them.  Your natural inclination is to believe that you’ll generally agree on issues, we ‘fill in the blanks’ of sorts.  This natural inclination is extraordinarily dangerous.

The quiet acquiescence

We continue to see people doing horrific things.  On the extreme end, the actions are criminal, like the shootings that we see with alarming regularity.  However, we also witness a wealth of other horrific behavior.  While we play a video game, we listen to hordes of men verbally gang up on women in the online chatter.  Furthermore, we witness disagreements online that eventually devolve into death and rape threats.  I understand that you may disagree with someone, but death and rape threats are never okay.

However, instead of describing the experience from the perspective of the target or witness, I’ll instead describe this as the perpetrator of this behavior.  Suppose that Bill is your childhood friend who gets into an online debate with a woman.  First, she makes him look like as asshole, so he looks at her online profile and figures out roughly where she lives.  Second, he responds by mentioning a location near her with the not-so-subtle implication that a face-to-face conversation is next.  Finally, he suggests that she should ‘know her place’ and ‘wished’ death or rape upon her.  Yes, this is horrific, but not difficult (and sadly not that uncommon).

Bill continues to express his opinions online and bully people into silence when they voice an opposition.  He knows that his friends, like you, can see all his posts.  No one among his friends or loved ones ever voices an opposition to this behavior; this includes you.  The people who he has threatened do not agree with him, but their opinions about his threats do not count.  The people whose opinion does matter to him, like you, never say, “This is not okay.”

Your passivity is an implied quiet acquiescence; it tells Bill this is acceptable.  It’s not.  How do we change this?  Disambiguate your position.

First, speak up when you witness it

The first answer is simple; establish boundaries among your friends and loved ones.  If watching Bill, your childhood friend, bully people with death and rape threats upsets you, you should feel empowered to speak up and say something.  You don’t necessarily need to do this publicly; you may do this more discreetly.  I said it was simple; I never said it’d be easy.  I still struggle with this.

You may rationalize that changing one person’s behavior is meaningless, that “a penny saved is ridiculous”.  That for each person who stops there’ll be a dozen who’ll step up and take his place.  However, instead of thinking of this as cleaning up the world, think of it as ‘keeping your yard tidy’.  If everyone kept their yard tidy, the world would be clean.  Furthermore, you never know, your efforts to clean your yard may be contagious.

However, you fear alienating Bill to the degree that he calls off your friendship; this is a possibility.  You can’t control whether Bill continues to bully people; you can only give him reasons to amend that behavior.  However, you can control whether you will stomach keeping Bill as a friend, after he knows how much this upsets you and willfully continues to bully people.

If enough of Bill’s friends voice that this behavior is unacceptable, he’ll eventually stop.  It’s simply a question of how many and how important each person is to him.

About three years ago, students at Capital High School, here in Washington staged a walkout.  During a basketball game, members of their class shouted ‘gorilla’ at an opposing player.  These students told everyone, “This is not okay; this is not who we are.”

Second, establish your boundaries

The second answer to this is to preemptively establish your boundaries.  For instance, we may all have a difference of opinion about different topics; that’s okay, we’re allowed.  It is never okay to intimidate people into silence with either death or rape threats.  The first suggestion involves confronting someone and calling them out on their behavior.  This second one is not as confrontational as the first but requires more work.  It’s simply reiterating your boundaries without necessarily calling anyone out like I did above:

It is never okay to intimidate people into silence with either death or rape threats.

You may rationalize that this doesn’t need to be said; everyone obviously knows that this isn’t okay.  Sadly, Bill never got the message and continues to do it.  Many other people online also didn’t get the message.  If this is so damn obvious, why do people continue to do it?  The simple answer is that in the case of this particular behavior, it’s easy and effective.  If Bill goes through the trouble of looking at your other posts to divine where you live to compose a thinly veiled threat, how do we know that he won’t follow through?

Allow me to frame this in a truly sobering and horrific way.  Mass shooters have friends, and most of those friends disagree with the act of shooting people.  There’s a possibility that a potential mass shooter sits on your friend list right now.  As obvious as it may seem, most agree about condemning mass shootings, but voicing sadness and outrage over yet another one may be enough to deter them.  Preemptively knowing that people condemn this criminal act may ultimately ‘talk them off that ledge’.

To answer my friend’s question

When my friend asked, “How can you believe I’m like that?  I shouldn’t have to say anything.”  The answer is, “Yes, you need to say something because it’s not obvious.”  For instance, when states like Florida oppose the mention of homosexuality in public schools until you say something, I won’t assume that you either support or oppose this bill.  If it comes up in conversation, and you don’t voice an opposition to it, I can safely conclude that you either support it or generally don’t care.

Weeks ago, a restaurant here in Washington backed out of catering a wedding because the couple was gay.  No, I don’t agree with that decision and believe that the proprietor should be disallowed from refusing service.  However, that proprietor also got death threats.  Even if their decision makes you angry, death threats are never okay.  Yes, I voiced that publicly, because it needed to be said.