Why the little things matter.

[feuervogel]

Once upon a discussion with my libertarian now-ex-boyfriend, he told me that I shouldn't get so upset over "the little things," like "that's so lame" or the eleventy-millionth depiction of bisexual women as slutty, indecisive, or outright evil, because ... I don't know, I guess because sharia exists, or something. The Real Problems, as defined by a white, middle-class, straight, cis man, because bisexual women don't get to define our own problems, I guess.

sohotrightnow has this excellent post on why little things matter.

Do not ever forget that it started small, that the Holocaust was merely the logical conclusion of the gradual devaluing and dehumanizing of large swaths of people -- some people claim that focusing on microaggressions and trying to end them is reductio ad absurdum; I'd go in a different direction and call the Holocaust an increscio ad absurdum: a completely logical series of steps from one degree of devaluing and dehumanizing to the next, on up to the most horrifying and completely logical conclusion. But don't forget either that there were a lot of people, along the way, who did fight, who didn't simply accept the tiny little ways their society had told them, day in and day out, for their entire lives, that certain lives were worth less than others, that certain people were less human than others. Don't use the latter fact to write off the former, because if more people had spoken up from the beginning, if more people had examined their assumptions and their language and the casual everyday ways they devalued and dehumanized the undesirable, maybe the more dramatic actions of the Righteous wouldn't have been necessary. But don't let the former cause you to lose hope, to think that there is nothing you can possibly do in the face of widely-held, systemically-enforced, popularly-approved and -perpetuated injustice. And by God, don't let it be an excuse to do nothing, to ignore the microaggressions because there are "real" problems, "real" injustices: because -- I know I am saying this over and over again, but seriously -- if more people had stopped and examined the small injustices they were committing or simply ignoring from the beginning, there may not have been a need for a few people to give up their lives trying to stop huge injustices.

And as far as the casual throwing around of "lame" as a derogatory term, who does it hurt to make the effort not to use words others find offensive? Ask yourself, if someone said "that's so gay," would it piss you off? Would it add to the hundreds of papercuts of society-wide injustice perpetrated against the LGBT* community? If yes, then STOP USING LAME as a replacement for gay in that sense.

Comments

[eirias.livejournal.com]

The problem I see isn't that the little things don't matter. The problem I see is that angry people make lousy ambassadors.

It may be that anger serves to communicate a viewpoint or an idea to people who are less angry, who can then play the ambassador role. I hope that's true -- the things that make me so eye-twitchingly mad that I can't imagine being diplomatic about them, are themselves the things that actually matter in my view. I'd like to imagine that my more moderate friends take my perspective and convey it to others in conversations where I'm not present, or at least think about the ideas when they're at the polls. But I think it's more likely that instead they tune out my bile and look for a way to change the subject.

[feuervogel]

I don't see how saying "could you stop using 'that's so lame/gay/retarded'?" is tantamount to bile. If the speaker is bothered by asking them to make a small change in their speech habits, that's the speaker's problem, not mine.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Sure! What I was responding to was not the particulars of this post, but the "my ex used to tell me I shouldn't get so upset about ______" frame. It's not obvious to me that getting upset about anything is helpful politically, even though that's difficult to put into practice.

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

Conversely, bland people make lousy ambassadors.

I think you're right that too much bile will make people tune out, but being too nice will also make people tune out because then you're not being interesting. You need a good mix of passion and reason to make an argument that people will listen to. It's the contrast that makes things interesting; if the argument is one-note in either key, then it gets boring.

It reminds me of a production of "Danton's Death" I saw a few years ago where EVERY! SCENE!! AND EVERY! ACTOR!!! WAS TURNED UP TO ELEVEN!1!!!! Despite all the intensity, it put me to sleep because it was relentless. Contrast is what our brains notice.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

*lol* I can imagine a play like that. I think you're right. I see more people erring on the side of passion, but that might be because people who err on the side of blandness don't get much attention ;). Which could partly explain our political environment, I suppose.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Also, though, I think it's important to note that "passion" doesn't necessarily mean "anger." I've never found anger per se to be useful, personally. It's like pine in a wood stove -- burns too hot too fast and doesn't produce enough warmth to be worth the mess.