Black Witch

Editor’s Note: This was written before the Buffalo mass shooting, which was an anti-Black hate crime. Also, there is a guide from Berkley on how to self-remove bias & biased thinking.

Time for a comment post-mortem, because it needs one. This was posted under the previous posted, titled “Dump Paula Langley, UMBC – the Continuation of the Problems at UMBC Library”, written by a person named “Anon Witch”:

“If someone is being offensive, I’d like to know more of the details of the offensiveness. The dyslexic is just a rediculous example and part of cancel culture. I’m personally not offended when people have mindsets other than myself and I definitely don’t believe in cancel culture if someone doesnt share my beliefs, etc. I feel these days people are just offended by “everything”. I am a free speech advocate, however if someone is working for an establishment, they should also adhere to its rules. Being rude to customers is unacceptable.”

Before I get into why this is all sorts of derp, let me show my reply to this comment:

Read the articles linked, and you’ll see some of the worse stuff. You should have done that prior, free speech also includes reading, I would imagine.

Now, two things: 1) Cancel culture has been around for *centuries*, this is just the new name. Also, that’s covered under free speech. As a “free speech advocate”, that should dawn on you. When I worked in the Library of Congress, we would say “‘Freedom of Speech’ does not mean ‘Freedom from Consequences’.” I have noticed the part that people who are squeamish about “cancel culture” is exactly the “consequence” part. Yes, being judged by your behavior sucks but that’s how the cookie crumbles.

2) Just because something doesn’t personally hurt *your* feelings, that doesn’t mean it isn’t hurtful. Yes, it sucks to learn that the world does not personally revolve around you but it’s a fact. I’m not dyslexic either but that doesn’t change the fact that “be dyslexic” is still ableist, plain and simple.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what *you* personally feel. No one should be violating the rights of others or harassing them for simply existing. And the old world you’re thinking of isn’t much better – White people literally would freak out if a Black person used a “White Only” fountain and men freaked out when women said “we have rights, just like you”, and straight & cis people still get their panties in a bunch over the existence of queer and trans people. Now *that* was “easily offended”. Now people who historically had to put up with such behavior can instead make those folks face the actual consequence of their behaviors.

People are still free to do what they want, but there are consequences. Basic “cause meets effect”. Paula was free to use her speech, and now the people she affected, me included, are using our freedoms of speech to newspapers, the internet, UMBC HR and Civil Rights investigators. And, if Paula has the brains for it, she’s free to use her freedom of speech to get herself out of this mess.

The DoJ doesn’t visit because someone has hurt fee-fees, they’re visiting because Paula’s behaviors are Civil Rights violations. Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean Freedom of Hate Speech nor Freedom to Violate Other People’s 1st Amendment Rights.

Also, libraries don’t have “customers” they have “patrons”, libraries are free to the public.

Now, to get into the daft nonsense that was Anon Witch’s comment.

Since I’ve already covered a lot in my original comment, let’s start with this fun comic from xkcd:

Remember everyone, “freedom of speech” is not “freedom of consequences”. If you put your foot in your mouth, people have the right to say you put your foot in your mouth. Even at the consequence of losing a job, social respect, etc. If you don’t want people to get on your case for the screwed up things you say, then put all the screwed up things you want to say in a physical diary, not on the internet. Orrrrr just take accountability for the things you say, good or bad. Can’t please everyone, fact of life.

Let’s crack out the bingo board! Because it’s been a while before we have seen a bingo board.

Here’s what this comment hit and why:

You’re overly sensitive – It’s basically the entire comment, from the first word to the last. They don’t even personally know the people involved in the case but wants to cape for the bad guy because “I don’t like Cancel Culture … and I’m somehow a free speech advocate at the same time”. Ok, so Anon Witch wants to back a person that literally badgered a transwoman to suicide, has an establish record of being ableist – to the point of firing people – and has never gone a single year at UMBC without a civil rights investigation, be it university, state or federal. That’s fine for them to say and do, just like it’s fine for me to point this nonsense out as clearly as possible. It doesn’t bother them, a random person on the internet that literally went anon, therefore the DoJ and everyone else should totally back off. The case only has one dead person involved, Anon Witch’s personal number of deaths or level of harassment hasn’t been hit whatsoever (which they failed to say what that level or number of deaths is). As for “they should adhere to the rules”, maybe Anon Witch should route themself to read up on civil rights, free speech and discrimination. You can’t harass people or discriminate people at work, especially based on any historical marginalization they have. Nice half-baked save with the “however[,] if someone is working for an establishment, they should also adhere to its rules” but too bad it’s super flimsy due to the “if”. Apply the “if” part, then it begs the question of “why say all the nonsense above the ‘if’ statement?” The establishment is a university and the rules are broken severely, the end.

Your experience is not representative of everyone – “I’d like to know more of the details of the offensiveness.” “I’m personally not offended when people have mindsets other than myself” Ok, so Anon Witch is a mega fan of mirrors, it appears. Again, while it does suck to know this, I’ll say it again: The world doesn’t revolve around Anon Witch. Or anyone, for that matter. Me included. Something can be a very prejudicial act, even if the affected group is not there. It’s not a case of “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” Yes, if someone told me something anti-Semitic, and there were zero Jewish people around – it’s still anti-Semitic. Even though I’m Pagan, not Jewish. Even though speaker is not. Still prejudiced. Now, if the speaker is Jewish, there’s always a case of internalized anti-Semitism … meaning what they say can still be anti-Semitic. If it can harm the group as a whole, not simply an individual, then yep, it can still be considered prejudiced.

Oh, and maybe if Anon Witch read the actual articles, they would have more details. The reason I’m not doing my usual treasure trove level exposure is because all those files are before the Dept of Justice investigators and reporters, who are the people who need to see it most. Not a random self-absorbed person on the internet.

 Can you prove your experience is widespread – “If someone is being offensive, I’d like to know more of the details of the offensiveness. The dyslexic is just a [ridiculous] example and part of cancel culture.” Read above for details.

You’re just looking for something to be offended by – “I’m personally not offended when people have mindsets other than myself and I definitely don’t believe in cancel culture if someone [doesn’t] share my beliefs, etc. I feel these days people are just offended by “everything”. I am a free speech advocate…” Too bad harassing and discriminating people in the workplace is not only offensive but also super illegal (and rights violating: Human rights, Civil rights and Constitutional Rights).

You’re seeing problems where none exist – “I’m personally not offended when people have mindsets other than myself and I definitely don’t believe in cancel culture if someone [doesn’t] share my beliefs, etc. I feel these days people are just offended by “everything”. I am a free speech advocate…” Yep, that statement hit multiple bingo blocks

I don’t find this offensive – “I’d like to know more of the details of the offensiveness. The dyslexic is just a [ridiculous] example and part of cancel culture. I’m personally not offended when people have mindsets other than myself and I definitely don’t believe in cancel culture if someone [doesn’t] share my beliefs, etc. I feel these days people are just offended by “everything”. I am a free speech advocate…” Like I said, multiple blocks.

I already talked about this above but in case anyone needs a revisit: While “Cancel Culture” is not fun to be on the business end of, it is part of free speech. Not the erosion of it. You’re free to say what’s on your mind and others are free to react to it. That includes screen-capping it and slapping it everywhere that there will be eyes and ears. To say, “I should be allowed to be a jerk but you can’t punish me for it [you’re free to praise and agree with me, though]” is a violation of free speech because why should one side get to say whatever they want, regardless who it hurts, and no one else can react to it? Especially if that reaction is negative.

Personally, I’m not really into obsessing about “Cancel Culture”. It’s simply a thing that exists. If someone says or does something prejudiced and it’s out for the world to see, then whatever happens happens. I only have concern if there are ulterior motives (such as railing on a Muslim person saying something homophobic … but the crowd is awful silent when a Christian person also says something homophobic – that shows Islamophobia at play) or something was genuinely fabricated – as in the person never said or did the act at all, not “I said I didn’t like Black people but that was taken out of context!” (Still an anti-Black statement, that’s why.)

I certainly don’t get how non-famous people, like Anon Witch, can get so hepped up on what’s known as “cancel culture”. If you’re not on the cover of any major publications and you have less than 1500 followers collectively across your social media (definitely if you can’t hit above 1000 on any of your social media accounts), the less you have to worry about. The less known you are, the less concerned you should be about “getting canceled” for yourself and definitely for others.

I have ran Black Witch for almost 12 years now and I haven’t had to worry about this. Cancel Culture is an unnecessary thing to fret over to me. Then again, I actually do try to not say or do screwed up things that harms other historically marginalized people, right down to who I feature for The Arts! on this blog. The easiest way to stay out of hot water is to never put yourself in it. And if you screw up, own up, and accept what happens. Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean “people have to like or be quiet about what you say”. Learning takes time, as does unlearning, but you have to do the work. Good thing there are countless resources online that allows people to learn.

I’ve gotten hate websites shut down before, mind you. Hate speech is technically protected by the 1^st amendment under “freedom of speech” (assuming it doesn’t turn into a hate crime (which includes hate speech, trolololo)) buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut! a lot of websites, if not nearly every website, has a Terms of Service (ToS) which says you’re not allowed to say discriminatory things nor provoke discriminatory things. That’s not the government shutting down the hate sites, it’s the website & online hosts (Twitch, Lycos, WordPress, Discord, GoDaddy, etc) because the people who created these sites are in no mood to being interviewed by the New York Times or answer questions from a congressional committee should a person go from just being all talk behind the keyboard to making those feelings very known in the physical world. (UPDATE: Twitch and Discord are now feeling this because of the Buffalo mass shooting, both are getting investigated and countless news articles bear their names. They’re not happy.)

Heck, I can personally choose what comments I allow on my blog. I don’t mind differing comments because I wouldn’t want to run a blog where it’s just a big echo chamber – but that doesn’t mean I have to let the folks run riot with their opinions, completely unopposed. I’m not always right, true facts, but neither are they. Plus, having an opinion, even an opposite opinion, doesn’t give anyone license to be a jerk or douche, either. I make it a point to respond to everyone the best I can – sometimes in a way they would wish I never saw what they wrote at all. Why? Because it’s my blog. Engaging with comments made on my blog is not the same as me trawling the internet to bother other people on their spaces.

As for the “people are too easily offended nowadays” – uhhhhhhhh, no. Historically marginalized people are tired of getting insulted/harassed/harmed (UPDATE: Or brutally murdered on livestream) for literally existing as the historically marginalized. Now, the tables can be turned on folks who act like trash. “Oh noes! People want their human rights respected! Life was so much better when we could just treat the historically marginalized horribly and they could hardly do anything about it! It sucks that I now can face real consequences for my behavior!” Life’s like that. Get over it.

It’s fine that Anon Witch can excuse ableism, and cape for a transphobic, prejudiced person. Anon Witch is all the way in California just typing away on their phone (I do ip location checks on comments like these since the Aussie Who Should’ve Kept Her Mouth Shut), so I guess they felt distant enough to pretend to be a “Free Speech Advocate” while musing that talking about someone’s bad behavior is, well, bad.

Maybe they should build a bridge and get over it. If someone doesn’t want to be in hot water, they should probably work to stay out of hot water. Land in it anyways? If you screw up, own up and then clean up. (UPDATE: And don’t murder people for simply existing.)