Ally, role model, or celebrity influencer? For Thee But Not For Me is not public health.
Ally, role model, or celebrity influencer? For Thee But Not For Me is not public health.
A few things to consider regarding the social media public health cult of personalities and the appearance of impropriety.
Some weeks back I got a reader submission to my form asking what do you wish the experts would do? The person gave this piece of advice for public health doctors and scientists in the public eye who put themselves out there as pandemic precaution experts and advocates for the vulnerable:
“If someone wants to take a picture of you, resist requests to remove your mask. It doesn’t matter if you’re inside or outside. It doesn’t matter if you’re showing your negative covid tests in the picture. It doesn’t matter if you just came out of a month-long quarantine, took several types of tests every day during that time, and every single one came out negative. It doesn’t matter if you hold your breath, and stand outside “for just a second” - Wear a damn mask when you take a selfie! Can’t manage that? Don’t post it on social media. Don’t use it in interviews. Don’t use it in promotional materials. Don’t be a hypocrite and don’t show your privilege.”
It’s really disappointing when people of privilege who assert they want to speak out for the marginalized, then undercut their messaging with their own exceptionalism, when they fail to practice what they preach. “Do your own risk assessment” has been rightly criticized because it goes against the core concept of public health, so when public facing advocates hide behind the assertion that they’re just doing their own risk assessment, the inconsistency undermines trust.
I don’t think people are doing this on purpose, and I don’t think they understand how deeply hurtful it is, because of course people in privileged positions have trouble seeing things from the point of view of the marginalized. For example, some well-meaning professionals I know spoke enthusiastically about Davos as “a good example” of people taking virus spread precautions, whereas most of my pals thought that whole conference was so egregiously offensive from top to bottom, and resent having it held up as an example, rather than it just being deservedly ridiculed as an elite creep event.1 The hired help put on masks while the privileged people with their pre-event tests and air purifiers didn’t need to wear the masks? Not a good example, and not a good look.
There are just so many examples of For Thee But Not For Me that I have to continually point out everywhere in our society, in our media, and even in progressive sci-fi.2 But some pandemic related examples that come to my mind are: CHOP’s Policylab that issued a statement that kids should be exposed in classrooms even when cases are high but the director, Dr. David Rubin openly stated he wouldn’t walk into such a room himself,3 or the fancy school district where Rochelle Walensky and Ashish Jha sent their kids with all the best upgrades and early advantages,4 while other people’s kids in underfunded school districts are expected to just risk it, and the San Francisco Health Commission Meeting, where the health officer called masks authoritarian and pooh-poohed the real risks to the elderly on public transit, while right there masks were required at their own health commission meeting and people were social distancing.5 I learned about all these things from ordinary people who were understandably outraged.
If you can’t see why this For Thee But Not For Me stuff is all related, and that it’s all problematic, maybe you’re not the ally you think you are. Just say “face diaper” already if you think class strata in the public health arena is ok, because people who “ditch the mask” for fancy photo ops are essentially announcing to everyone that they think masks are dirty things for people beneath them, or something they just need around those people. I’ve seen this attitude since the beginning of the pandemic (if not pre-dating it) - the idea that the disease risk only comes from those people or that it only affects or pertains to those people. And what follows naturally from that is that one doesn’t even need to care about those people.
The people who disappoint this way always have a following of course, or otherwise nobody would notice their antics and missteps - nobody would care. But these are people who are putting themselves out there as role models and leaders and social media influencers. And they often cultivate that following which makes it more confusing for some of us - why on earth they would diss their disabled and immunocompromised followers so blatantly. They enjoy the celebrity, but seem to think that their followers should just accept whatever they do, even when they say one thing and do another.
This attitude, that the rules don’t apply to the big shots, and the followers should put up and shut up about it, is actually typical of cult leaders.6 Let that sink in, and think about that the next time you’re told followers should not criticize Dear Influencer.
David Pakman Show - Getting Cult Members Out of Cults (Rachel Bernstein Interview)
David Pakman: Oftentimes the followers allow, or may be accept is the better word, that their leaders play by a different set of rules. There's rules for the followers, and the leaders often don't follow those very same rules. Now, in cases like maybe a Jim Jones and the People's Temple, he's seen sort of like a deity almost and so that makes it really easy to understand. Well, like, if you're God or godlike, of course, you have a different set of rules that you play by than we the followers play by. But not all of these cults have leaders that necessarily frame themselves in this kind of deified way. In the non overtly deifying cults, what are the explanations or justifications that the followers have for why the rules they have to follow aren't the rules that the leader has to follow?
Rachel Bernstein: That’s a great question. It happens time and time again.And to make this very relatable, this is something that also happens in relationships with controllers and with malignant narcissists, where they can do whatever they want and you can't question them and they can have access to your information or your passwords or your, you know, ATM. And they can gain everything. And you have nothing. You have no power. You can't get any of their information, but they can get all of yours. So it happens in these sort of one on one, these sort of dyad cults, too, within these relationships. But going back to the idea of cults and why permission is given. Permission is given for everything when it comes to the leader within a cult. And that's actually why some people start cults, because they love that. They love having the freedom to do or say whatever they want, and they love knowing that the rules only apply to the followers. I mean, it's sort of, you know, the sociopaths or the narcissistic playground. And they couldn't enjoy it more unfortunately. Unfortunately, what happens when you get involved in a system like this is that there's kind of what I see as a dual track of influence. One is overt and one is covert. And the overt is: here are the teachings. Here's what we believe in and here's what you need to do to be a good follower. The covert one is if you question how things are run, you will not receive the benefit of this. All of your sacrifice will be for naught, right, your time is going to be wasted.
Perhaps stop to consider a little when deciding whether you should really go along with tone policing of the marginalized7 or taking the side of the privileged with “for the sake of the group”8 as the reasoning. There’s a term for this and it’s called groupthink!9
David Pakman Show - Getting Cult Members Out of Cults (Rachel Bernstein Interview)
Rachel Bernstein: People learn how to turn the focus inward within a cult, and they question themselves for doubting. And doubting and being negative, being angry about anything or resenting anything in a cult is considered really, really awful. And it's going to be counterproductive to what you're trying to get by being there. So you think you're working against yourself by having critical thinking. It's a fascinating kind of way of getting into gaslighting.
That one person, one prominent person, is so very important, that people need to celebrate every little social media post about their life, even if it offends other people, or even if it’s risky for others - this is a fandom, not allyship. This is not solidarity with the “people closest to the pain, who should be closest to the power”10 and it’s not a movement, it’s at best a fan club, or maybe even a cult. When someone says it’s important “for the movement” or “for unity” in the group, to overlook Dear Influencer’s double standards and gaffes, what they’re really saying is that they think that celebrity is going to be a savior, if only we don’t make them mad. It’s deferring power to people who already have plenty, and nevertheless have not solved our problems. It’s so often the people with the power who have often been causing the problems and then running away from responsibility.11
We need to save ourselves, and we can. Not by deferring to people in power, or kowtowing to cults of personality, but by pressuring people in key positions to do right by us. Whenever or wherever you’re able to do so, write your political representatives, talk to your community leaders, mention your struggles to your friends and family. I’m not waiting for some celebrity or influencer to get someone else’s attention. Too often it’s my attention that’s being commandeered by celebrities on social media and elsewhere, and it’s taking time away that I could be spending more productively pressuring my representatives.12 We are social creatures and seeking community is natural, normal, and very human. But social media takes advantage13 of human needs. And it’s probably actually harming any movement to stay so focused on the roiling news and social media hype cycle,14 with endless searching, scrolling, and posting that mostly just benefits the platforms.15
The bottom line is that even the appearance of impropriety can be damning. Unity shouldn’t mean people with power pushing the people closest to the pain under the bus.
Don’t be a hypocrite and don’t show your privilege.
And we all might want to check if our social media fandom silos are actually a little bit culty, and reevaluate our priorities about how we spend our time. I know I have to do so regularly. It’s the human condition in our modern media environment.
References:
The 5 Creepiest Moments at Davos. The real Davos conspiracy is hiding in plain sight. By KEN KLIPPENSTEIN, JAN 20, 2023 An Entire Panel on “Quiet Quitting” - “Quiet quitting” is the idea that discontented workers are checking out at work and driving productivity down, a disputed phenomenon but which some employers believe has picked up ever since the pandemic. (Perhaps they haven’t seen Office Space or any of the countless 2000’s-era movies and TV shows depicting a protagonist whose animating conflict is hating their job.) Consisting of CEOs from Vimeo, Mercer and Wipro, the panel represents a “tough crowd” for blaming the phenomenon on bosses, cracked moderator Ben Smith, founder of Semafor. Solutions for the scourge of quiet quitting are discussed and include connecting with employees by doing everything from CEOs sending workers video messages — “so you can get their emotion and nuance instead of reading an email,” explains Vimeo CEO Anjali Sudi — to conducting hourlong, open-ended meetings with no agenda; and stressing the business’s contributions to charity in order to motivate employees.
Socialism for me but not for thee. The Elite Panic of Star Trek's Prime Directive. The arc of the universe bends toward corporate welfare for the well off and bootstrap gaslighting for ordinary people. But resistance is NOT futile. By CHLOE HUMBERT, APR 1, 2023 I was asked (as seemingly a gotcha), if I thought that a planet shouldn’t be allowed to decline contact. Would it be the planet declining contact though, I asked? Would it be decided democratically taking into account the most marginalized of that planet’s society? I know the answer to the gotcha question was no because in that discussion the example floated was the First Contact episode from Star Trek The Next Generation where the planet’s leadership elites decide to decline contact and lie to their citizenry. They declined even the knowledge of first contact, not just diplomatic relations, without consent or knowledge by the ordinary people on the planet. Then they warn one of the dissenters basically that she’d be smeared as crazy if she blabbed about it! That episode’s scenario wasn’t a very compelling argument for the Prime Directive unless you like the idea of wrecked lives of dissenters and high level people making secret deals with space aliens, such as Xi Jinping, Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, and whoever is the prime minister of the UK these days.
Safety for me, but not for thee: CHOP’s Dr. David Rubin. By Chloe Humbert on Medium, Apr 22 2023 Doctor David Rubin himself directly contradicted the PolicyLab official public stance of promoting children spreading the virus in crowded classrooms while cases are high, when speaking of how he would behave to protect himself from crowded indoor situations — he would avoid such situations, he said.
Naked Capitalism - How Ashish Jha and Rochelle Walensky of Newton, MA Protect Their Children from Covid (But not Yours) - Posted on September 25, 2022 by Lambert Strether In fact, every Newton school has its own ventilation dashboard. A Google search for “corsi rosenthal box +newton massachusetts” returns no hits. I guess in Newton, MA, they don’t need them. But wait. Plot twist. Please return to the MAG recommendations. You will see that not only is “ventilation” highlighted, but “should continue” is highlighted as well. So when did NPS’s $5 million investment begin? As it turns out, NPS decided to invest in ventilation on September 20th, 2020, far before the MAG committee made its recommendation.
Public erupts w/ comments when health director calls masks authoritarian at San Fran public meeting June 2022 Public Comment auto transcript: “i am very disheartened to hear dr phillips comments about masked mandates being authoritarian i'm disturbed by your likening of mass mandates as authoritarian if it's so authoritarian why do you have math mandates at your meetings it's very your department is still requiring masking in your meeting even i see people social distancing so it's certainly not the case on public transit where many high-risk people ride to get to essential appointments or to get to work”
David Pakman Show - Getting Cult Members Out of Cults (Rachel Bernstein Interview), Jan 7, 2023 Rachel Bernstein, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, educator, author, and host of the podcast IndoctriNation, joins David to discuss how to help cult members, victims of narcissists, former supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and others, which she has done for 30 years in her practice
Blog of the American Philosophical Association (APA) Tone-Policing and the Assertion of Authority At its core, tone-policing is first an argumentative move sideways and then a stall. It first shifts the focus from the content of the conversation to the tone, language, or manner of discussion (as the quote above says) and then – unlike other interventions about tone – policing announces that the shift cannot be reversed until tone is addressed. The tone-policer doesn’t just declare that their interlocutor’s tone is inappropriate and heightened (usually because it is too hostile, adversarial, or aggressive, upset, or irrational). They insist that the conversation cannot continue until the speaker adjusts it. It often involves a further demand – implicit or explicit – that the interlocutor address their infraction with some apology or other gesture of accountability before things can proceed.
Risky Shift, a groupthink exploitable vulnerability. The group trolley cart wheels really do sometimes have a pull toward risk. By CHLOE HUMBERT, MAR 19, 2023 And sometimes, for some reason, instead of urging caution, or calling for making amends for a transgression, or shepherding the waylaid to prevent such missteps in future -- instead, a number of people in the group, often with authority within the group, will rush to comfort the transgressor, and grant them that absolution and acceptance without even any attempt or request for atonement. “Victims, perpetrators, and witnesses may display betrayal blindness in order to preserve relationships, institutions, and social systems upon which they depend.” Sometimes deindividuation becomes a default scapegoat.
Investopedia: What Is Groupthink? Definition, Characteristics, and Causes Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. Groupthink is based on a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people. This desire creates a dynamic within a group whereby creativity and individuality tend to be stifled in order to avoid conflict.
Ayanna Pressley post on twitter 6:14 PM · Jun 30, 2018 but this is what I mean by, "THE PEOPLE CLOSEST TO THE PAIN SHOULD BE THE CLOSEST TO THE POWER, DRIVING & INFORMING THE POLICYMAKING". It's about #cooperative #governing & developing #solutions in #partnership with the people most impacted by an issue
Tech Won’t Save Us with Paris Marx - 22 12 08 [#145] Trusting Tech Billionaires is a Recipe for Disaster - Douglas Rushkoff But what I realized was, what we were looking at was a bigger guilt paranoia, where they have always been trying to build a car that could go fast enough to escape from its own exhaust — that they’ve been living with trying to escape externalities. And back in the days when it was people of color in faraway places and their resources that you were taking and their children that you were enslaving, it wasn’t quite as bad as when it was right in your own country. When your own Northern California, Indigenous-made log cabin Wigwam is now being singed with forest fires from your own deforestation practices. What do you think’s going to happen? Now they’re starting to worry, when they see the storming of the Capitol. It got a lot of them scared. It’s like: Uh oh, what power have we unleashed? It’s one thing to not let my own kid use any of the stuff and they don’t. Their kids are going to Rudolf Steiner Schools and Waldorf academies.
Writing Letters to Elected Representatives, a guide. Letters to politicians are some of the easiest and most effective actions many neglect. By CHLOE HUMBERT, JAN 24, 2023 Pressure on elected government officials with letter campaigns have shaped the laws that govern our lives and protect us from lies and harm, such as car seat belt laws and even the rule that peanut butter has to be made of peanuts and not full of additives!
TIME: How Addictive Social Media Algorithms Could Finally Face a Reckoning in 2022 By Megan McCluskey JANUARY 4, 2022 Often compared to Big Tobacco for the ways in which their products are addictive and profitable but ultimately unhealthy for users, social media’s biggest players are facing growing calls for both accountability and regulatory action. In order to make money, these platforms’ algorithms effectively function to keep users engaged and scrolling through content, and by extension advertisements, for as long as possible.
Seek protection from noise and spiraling gloom. By CHLOE HUMBERT - FEB 16, 2023 Adversaries will try to confuse you into inaction… into doing nothing. As Carl von Clausewitz pointed out, the aggressor “would prefer to take over a country unopposed” — if possible. If you are bombarded with disinformation and chaos, it works as a cognitive attack and can put you into a state of inaction — or even erroneous disruptive action, such as dooming and spreading fatalism for example — and you unwittingly harm your own cause and your own movement.
Hypernormalisation Documentary, 2016, by Adam Curtis ”The liberals were outraged at Trump. But they expressed their outrage in cyberspace so it had no effect. Because the algorithms made sure that they only spoke to people who already agreed with them. Instead ironically their waves of angry messages and tweets benefitted the large corporations who ran the social media platforms. one online analyst put it simply — angry people click. It meant that the radical fury that came like waves across the internet no longer had the power to change the world. Instead it became a fuel that fed the systems of power making them ever more powerful.”