ohnoitsnuance

[ohnoitsnuance]

As someone who thinks voting in the US elections is you can is important to do, I think shaming people who decide not to vote due to moral reasons isn’t a good idea for the following:

1. Shame is a shit motivator. It’s not effective and it doesn’t work.

2. People choosing not to vote for moral reasons are doing so because they feel the Democratic Party has let them down or ignored their concerns (and often it has done both of these things, it’s not JUST a feeling) aren’t going to change their mind because people continue to ignore their concerns and perspective.

3. It’s not productive. There are plenty of people who A. Aren’t sure if they want to vote and are open to hearing multiple perspectives and B. Want to vote but don’t know how to get there/register/vote by mail. The time people spend here yelling at one non-voter would be far better spent addressing dozens of group A or B.

4. Unless someone is actively spreading disinformation on how to vote (like saying you can vote by phone), leaving these folks alone is frankly a better call strategically (and I think morally. A lot of the time the disagreement here comes down among other things to strategy, and I don’t think limiting ourselves to one strategy is wise unless that strategy actively hurts people).

Anyway I’m sure few will like this take, but hey that’s why it’s the nuance blog.

[ohnoitsnuance]

I’m always torn when I see posts that state “combatting misinformation is an excuse to censor the opinions of minorities”

Cus on one hand, yeah, it absolutely can be. Any tool that can limit speech can be used to further oppress an oppressed class. Especially when what is “true” is muddy and no one knows for sure what the truth is. That’s absolutely correct.

On the other hand, I see it used to say “there were no Russian bots” when there’s a plethora of evidence that there was. Can one argue it wasn’t super effective? Sure (personally I think it had an impact but I can’t state how much of one with confidence). Can one argue the attempt to suppress bots censored real people? Sure, I don’t know of any examples but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was and I think it’s likely there is at least a handful of cases. But saying it didn’t happen at all? That’s just not true.

I don’t have a conclusion here, only that it’s frustrating to see this true critique applied to something that did actually happen.

[ohnoitsnuance]

Despite this very tongue-in-cheek blog title, this blog is really for two things:

1. To vent frustrations regarding how my brain works that people who have brains like might may find helpful to know others are struggling with it.

2. Making a space to speak about thoughts on my mind that I think are very complex, multifaceted and are not best suited for the Internet which tends to not like nuance.

This blog is NOT:

1. Saying anything someone posts or writes about is wrong or bad. I might complain about certain types of posts here BUT when I do that, I am not saying those posts are bad or wrong. In fact, they can be right and good. I am merely stating that the way they interact with my brain is a problem and my frustration is directed at said interaction.

2. Ideally not a frequently used channel. Best case, I delete this bad boy in a few days. For now, it can stay.

[ohnoitsnuance]

It’s been really weird to see this website go from “trigger warnings are important to avoid mental health attacks from those with PTSD or OCD” to “trigger warnings are just an excuse to avoid the horrors of reality by the well off.”

I understand entirely what the second argument is getting at, because people absolutely use the phrase incorrectly to block out ideas or events that might upset them just a little (and should upset them!) but at the same time, now when I use this site, not only can I not brace myself for content that triggers my OCD but I also get double triggered by being told my want of triggers is a moral failing.