Toxic Activism
When Devotion to a Cause Goes Bad
Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov chose not to participate in the team's LGBTQ+ Pride Night festivities Tuesday night January 17th — which included wearing a rainbow-themed warmup jersey prior to the Flyers' game against the Anaheim Ducks. Provorov, who says he is Russian Orthodox, explained that he chose not to participate because of his religious beliefs. Instead, he remained in the locker room during warm-ups
"I respect everybody's choices," he told reporters after the game. "My choice is to stay true to myself and my religion."
Flyers coach John Tortorella did not bench Provorov, and came to his defense, saying Provorov is "being true to himself and to his religion…This has to do with his belief and his religion," Tortorella said in his postgame comments. "It's one thing I respect about Provy: He's always true to himself. That's where we're at with that."
Seems like a legitimate personal reason and since he didn’t come out for warm-ups, he didn’t actively try to stand out in any particular way. It wasn’t even really a protest, more of choosing not to promote something he didn’t believe in. His absence shouldn’t even had been an issue.
But to hear some people in editorials and online talk about it, this was:
a depraved act of homophobia at it’s most extreme, (https://www.inquirer.com/flyers/ivan-provorov-flyers-pride-night-lgbtq-20230118.html)
ruined Pride Night (https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/35474865/provorov-negatively-impacted-pride-night_,
required a fine, his benching or outright suspsension (https://www.boundingintosports.com/2023/01/canadian-broadcaster-calls-for-nhl-to-fine-the-philadelphia-flyers-for-allowing-ivan-provorov-to-abstain-from-wearing-pride-night-jersey-takes-issue-with-religious-people/ )
Huh?
It was none of those things. To me, it was a passive non-act to be quickly forgotten. Not everybody has to agree on everything, and his lack of participation in something he disagreed with seems completely reasonable. The Flyers have a right to promote things, groups and events and employees have a right not to take an active role if it conflicts with their beliefs. However, activists, wanting to advocate on the particular issue, reason be damned, and who want to make an example of a dissenter, had to make a point and condemn this man for not going along. This crossed the line when activism turns toxic, and actually backfired miserably.
We’ve all seen activists claim that if you are not 100% for something, it makes you 100% its antithesis. It’s the B.S. argument that:
If you are not for “The Thin Blue Line” flag that you are anti-police officer;
If you are not for “Drag queen reading hour” you are trans-phobic;
If you are for reasonable gun restrictions that you are anti- 2nd Amendment;
If you disagree with kneeling during the national anthem you’re a racist;
If you are pro-choice you’re anti-life, or that if you are pro-life you believe the world should be some kind of dystopian Atwood novel;
If you oppose how Israel treats Palestinians in the West Bank that makes you anti-Semitic;
This illogical argument always reminded me of a Seinfeld episode when Kramer walks in the AIDS walk to support AIDS research but refuses to wear the ribbon, and gets branded as not being sufficiently anti AIDS by “ribbon bullies.”
There are hundreds of examples of this false logic. None of them are true on their face. But when we so readily throw out terms like “racist,” “misogynist,” “anti-semitic,” “homophobe” or “fascist” it creates a poisonous atmosphere that prevents any further discussion from occuring, and completely backfires on the person leveling the claim.
What is Toxic Activism?
We’ve all seen videos of environmental activists smearing oil or food on priceless paintings for attention:
On the one hand, it gives the activists something they crave; eyeballs and a lot of attention. On the other, none of the attention is good. Reasonable people flat out reject the action and it even repels people otherwise sympathetic to their cause. In essence, this is the epitome of toxic activism. It is an action or just cause that goes out of it’s way to ruin or hinder appreciation of something that brings enjoyment to its intended audience or prevents someone from fulfilling a normal daily function. It thrives based on the false logic “If not A, then you MUST be B without condition” where B is the diametrically opposed position.
Another example of this is when protestors for whatever cause walk on major highways during morning rush hours while people try to get to work. They think they are bringing attention to a cause (they are) but most people don’t empathize with the protesters, they empathize with the person getting docked pay for showing up 90 minutes late because the bus they take was stopped by a silly protest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-highways-have-become-the-center-of-civil-rights-protest/
It’s a Matter of Degree
We live in a democracy and in that sense, activism is a necessary part of that, even a civic duty. I’m not saying all activism is bad, or that supporting a cause is bad. Actually, I strongly support causes and encourage others to do so too for causes, people and groups they genuinely believe in. But when those causes diparage those that are opting not to actively support them (particularly to the level of degree of others), even though they are not opposed to the group, that cause becomes toxic. It becomes not a matter of persuasion, but a matter of clubbing to death anyone outside their circle who shows they may not be 100% on board.
Much of this stems from activists’ mistaken belief that if someone does not promote, advocate or protest on an issue to the extent that they do, that they don’t care about that issue or are intentionally hindering progress on it. Activists will even call out such people as secretly on the other side of the issue as if it’s part of some conspiracy. This is where terms such as “squishes,” “RINOs",” “closet Republican/Democrat” all derive from. One can passively believe in an idea or group, even contribute to it, but does not have to go all in and should be required to do so. Requiring a cult-like devotion to any cause is not healthy and can in fact be counterproductive.
Two great examples of this (one from each side of the spectrum) demonstrates this phenomenon. On the right, #MAGAs constant political pressure on Republicans it feels are not singly devoted to Donald Trump or the far right wing of the Republican Party immediately gets them branded a RINO apostate and targeted. Someone as far right of center as Liz Cheney, was ostracized because she chose to speak up and say what everyone witnessed with their own two eyes about January 6th. She has since lost her party primary and is now out of Congress. Agree with her or not, she was a more than competent Republican Representative with a near perfect Conservative voting record, cut down by angry toxic far right activists. On the other side of the spectrum, #KHIVE, an online twitter group that strongly supported Kamala Harris in the primaries and morphed into a far left online group, would routinely cut down anyone disagreeing with them as racist, sexist, anti-liberal (often when not justified) or a host of other labels in an attempt to smear alternative opinions among Democrats. They were vehemently against centrism or moderation and hated Joe Biden, and only eased up after Kamala Harris was selected as VP. They and their tactics still exist online. In both cases, their causes would be strengthened (not harmed) by having a bigger tent that allowed a level of dissent. Instead, they sought to push ideological compromisers out of the tent altogether.
So why now?
For starters, this kind of radicalism has always been around. It’s a favored tactic to try and move the political center of gravity further to the extremes. However, usually the center holds. It’s enough to reflect on the Yeats poem, “The Second Coming.”
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
The center tends to look at both of the fringes and say, “They’re both nuts, we want someone normal.” Most people are not hard activists, and given the very online culture that has developed over the past 20 years, many forget that.
Much of the more recent toxic activism though began largely in the early 90s, with the rise of right wing media, and the decline of objective consensus expertise in favor of punditry, communications specialists, and panel hacks. Rush Limbaugh completely personified the ideal of toxic activism. And as his audience grew, so did his tactics and political pull. His “dittoheads” became the activists du jour of the GOP in the mid-90s after Gingrich came to power. Limbaugh directed his single minded minions to ostracize RINOs, and chase every Clinton scandal possible, some imagined, others less so. However, to demonstrate how counterproductive this kind of activism is, Clinton easily won re-election in 1996, and when the GOP impeached him in 1998, not only did he get acquitted in the Senate, but Democrats WON seats in the midterm (something that only rarely happens in presidential midterms). This kind of backfiring is emblematic of toxic activism, since it is indicative of a strong, senseless overrreach.
On the left, much of the recent toxic activism kicked into gear as a byproduct of the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter movements. These two causes had similar root causes, similar reasons to reject moderation and similar mindsets in their activists.
Both #MeToo and BLM were triggered by intense, sensationalized events that drew attention to their cause. For #MeToo, it was the Harvey Weinstein case and the elction of Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood video. For #BLM, it was the George Floyd video.
#MeToo and BLM called attention on people who turned a blind eye to sexual misconduct or racial injustice that occurred. It was no longer acceptable to be a passive observer, such instances needed to be called out and addressed. There was now an affirmative responsibility to act in such instances.
To most everyone, there was a sense that outrage was justified, and that a reckoning was due. Social mores and business practices were changed accordingly.
To core #MeToo and #BLM activists, to not fully support these organizations (regardless of how well they are run, fundraise/spent money or what is said by organization leadership) is to be fundamentally 100% opposed to them, thus making that person a misogynist or racist respectively.
BLM activists confront people dining outside restaurant; the people dining were liberals and agreed with BLM, but were just dining and in no mood to protest at the time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/08/25/dc-protesters-blm-diner-confrontation/
It’s this last point, which is false in its logic and can lead to toxic activism. For instance, one can believe Black Lives Matter (just as All Lives Matter, but Blacks in particular have been historically and repeatedly neglected the same safeguards and protections everyone else takes for granted), one can believe they are entitled to equality, but one may disagree that they are entitled to equity, which is a different concept. To someone who believes that it doesn’t matter where you start, but that through hard work, commitment and sacrifice you can achieve what you want, equality of opportunity can be supported while the BLM stated goal of equity (equality in outcomes) may be construed as favoritism antithetical to equality of opportunity. This is a philosophical belief not associated with race. Yet, to many (not all) BLM activists, they would consider such a position racist—because they disagree with their stated aims. To that person who supports racial equality then and support the majority of BLM’s goals, they get branded as a racist and shunned from the group. It’s this idea that makes the activism toxic. Instead, bringing them into association with the group and working towards goals that are aligned (racial equality), is a much more constructive proposition, and may actually lead toward more equitable results down the road.
Lastly, there also used to be a need to have experts. If there was economic news, you’d have an economist on. If there was a major foreign event, you’d have a foreign official or defense expert on. If there was a technological breakthrough, you’d have a specialist in that area describe how it was innovative. Today, with the number of high paid pundits and partisan hacks on contract with the major news outlets, you’re more likely to just have two of them on talking about the impact on their party’s position, and not the overall impact generally. This doesn’t encourage an objective, reasoned opinion, but rather a dichotomous one pulled further to the extremes as these two pundits play to score points with their sides’ bases.
So Where Does That Leave Us?
I’ve always felt the sign of a true friend is to call them out when they have gone too far. That is what I do here now. Activists often go too far. They need to be called out on it. Pragmatism, objectivity and compromise, all necessary for good governance and a civil society, cannot be tossed aside in favor or ideological zealotry, subjective partisanship and extremism.
Some may say this means people should be LESS active. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need people to become more involved in local and regional civic and political organizations. They’ve been ceded to out of control activists for far too long. We need good people to stand up and say “Cool it, this is too much.” We need people to welcome other civic minded individuals to take an active role in their cities, school boards and assemblies and be voices of reason.
Sometimes finding non-confrontational organizations to associate with can be helpful too, since they often need volunteers as well. Become an election judge and work a polling station on election days. Coach a local kids sports team and get to know the parents. Meet the people of your community, something that has been seriously lacking since the online world grew so much. You can learn a lot more from taking an active role in the lives of others than you can spouting off and labeling others from behind a computer screen.
PurpleAmerica’s Recommended Stories
Some books that I would highly recommend in regard to the idea of activism and problems that have stemmed from it:
Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise. It used to be people would spend a lifetime developing intellect and work experience in a particular area, and their opinions were deferred to as expert opinions. With the advent of online pesudo-expertise, people now claim to be geniuses in things they know nothing about and accrue a misled following. https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise-Campaign-Established-Knowledge/dp/0190469412
Richard Reeves, Of Boys and Men. Sometimes activism is hugely successful, as with our education of young girls the past 40 years. Girls now outnumber boys in college and in law schools across the nation. However, by focusing solely on improving the outcomes of girls, we’ve left young boys behind in a big way, particularly young men of color. https://www.amazon.com/Boys-Men-Modern-Struggling-Matters/dp/0815739877/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3DPHOWS93VEE&keywords=Richard+Reeves&qid=1674329159&s=books&sprefix=richard+reeves%2Cstripbooks%2C126&sr=1-1
PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day
Quite often it may seem, particularly to those online, that the world is more extreme, more liberal (or conservative depending on the site) and more tied to social media.
However, according to Pew Research:
69% of people use Facebook and slightly more use YouTube. No other online social media site is used by more than 40% of Americans.
Twitter is used by only 23% of Americans.
Less than 30% of Americans use social media daily. This is sharply skewed by age group, as young americans (18-29) account for nearly 3/4 of all daily users .
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/#panel-b14b718d-7ab6-46f4-b447-0abd510f4180
PurpleAmerica Cultural Criticism Corner
My favorite show of the past 5 years is Reservation Dogs. It may be the greatest coming of age show ever. It’s about a group of indiginous youths growing up on an Oklahoma reservation. The kids go through normal teen angst but what makes the show so genuine is that not only are the actors all indiginous, but so are all the crew, including writers who write about their lives and events growing up in such an environment. They even go out of their way to cast indiginous actors in cameo roles, incuding Wes Studi and Nathan Apodaca (the Fleetwood Mac listening, cranberry drinking longboarder).
But what I love about the show is that there are some sly, subtle instances of genuine activism that are far more profound than so much you see on television which can instead seem like being hit across the face. Compare these two scenes.
The first is from an episode called “DeColoNativization” which is about particular youth activists trying to inspire the kids, but are really just poseurs and influencers trying to expand their followers and never really had any ties to life growing up on a reservation:
Now compare it to this scene, probably the most beautiful I have ever seen, which talks about the rich native ancestry, that they are a part of something strong and beautiful, that they endured harsh hardships and endured and that their heritage is special. It does more to make you understand and empathize in 6 minutes than anything on television this year.
That is positive activism, and is far more powerful and persuasive than the actions a lot of groups use. You don’t have to slam people’s face into the message, you just have to put something meaningful together that others can relate to.
This show is just full of great scenes, wonderful stories, and amazing performances. If you have not seen it yet, it can be binged on Hulu. (Two seasons, 10 episodes each).
Outstanding Tweets
As if on cue, a large contingent of protesters burned Atlanta over the weekend. Demonstrating everything I am talking about here is conservative Eric Erickson:
I tend to agree— once they’re no longer protesting and resort to burning facilities and shooting a cop, they have more in common with rioters/ anarchists than protesters.
A lot has been made about football analyst and former coach Tony Dungy this week for his political and religious beliefs. He spoke at the recent Pro-Life March on Friday. Frankly, he seems like a nice guy whom I happy to disagree with on a number of issues and certainly doesn’t deserve to be raked over coals for his thoughts.
Nonetheless, a lot of the left have gone out of their way to shame and berate him and call for the NFL and NBC to fire him. Dungy has always kept his politics and his job separate, and he does a fine job as an analyst. Activists trying to force him out is the kind of poisnous thing we need to just stop. Disagreement sometimes can be more effective if just ignored. Attacking Dungy like this makes me sympathize with Dungy, even though I disagree entirely with his beliefs on this issue.
But like all of us, he can be assertive in his beliefs and his actions can be harmful. Unlike a lot of people, he apologized for the action and then re-ran the apology to give it the attention it deserved.
This seems genuine, and I hope serves as a good example for what we should do when we advocate so zealously that we recognize we may have crossed a line. It’s not hard to say “I’m sorry an I regret my actions,” but it’s something that is seldom done and has become more infrequent in recent years.
Parting Thoughts
Let me know what you think of the page. Please share and comment!