Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, January 14, 2019

Trigger warning: Column discusses 
graphic scenes of sexual assault.
T

witter 
has 
become 
a platform for social 
and political activism. 
While scrolling through tweets, 
I sometimes come across cute 
photos of dogs and the occasional 
heartwarming video, but I mostly 
see tweets aimed at controversial 
media and news. One television 
show that has sparked a large 
amount of these tweets is the 
Netflix series “Thirteen Reasons 
Why.”
One 
scene, 
in 
particular, 
fueled contentious debate. In 
season 2 of “Thirteen Reasons 
Why,” there’s a scene in which 
one of the characters, Tyler, is 
confronted by the much stronger, 
more aggressive Monty. In the 
shocking scene, Monty smashes 
Tyler’s head against the bathroom 
sinks repeatedly before dragging 
him to the toilets and sodomizing 
him with a mop as Tyler screams 
out in pain.
Many people took to Twitter 
to voice their thoughts about the 
necessity of the scene. Many who 
opposed the inclusion of the scene 
argued that such graphic scenes 
are unnecessary and that the 
trigger warning at the beginning 
of the episode was insufficient. 
Those in favor of the scene argued 
that the scene was supposed to 
be uncomfortable for viewers 
to watch and was crucial for 
“starting the conversation” about 
male victim sexual assault.
As someone who watched both 
seasons of “Thirteen Reasons 
Why” 
I 
became 
physically 
sickened by that scene, so I went 
on Twitter to read the debates 
about the series, and there was 
one part of the argument in favor 
of the scene that baffled me: There 
was no depth in the conversation. 
The 
only 
conversation 
about 
male rape centered on whether 
the scene with Tyler and Monty 
should have been put in the show 
or not. The main conversations 
were about how Hannah and Zach 
(two of the protagonists who were 
briefly involved in a relationship) 
“deserved 
better” 
and 
the 

attractiveness of Justin Foley, 
another one of the protagonists. 
There were a few miscellaneous 
tweets about how male rape is 
more common than people think, 
and how people need to discuss 
it, but they got lost among the 
photo edits of Zach and Hannah, 
as well as tweet threads about the 
controversial scene. Nothing was 
factual, in-depth or executed with 
care.
It seems as though “starting 
the conversation” has become an 
excuse, rather than the reason, 
for sharing shocking and often 
graphic content about sensitive 
topics. However, the response to 
the scene in “Thirteen Reasons 
Why” serves as a prime example as 
to why creating and then releasing 
graphic content that relates to 
prevalent societal issues doesn’t 
really do anything.
Doing something to simply 
“start the conversation” is a 
lazy, problematic approach to 
tackling issues. It’s a cop-out 
that absolves the person starting 
the conversation of any event 
that ensues, and showing people 
horrifying scenes to “start the 
conversation” 
about 
societal 
issues 
is 
the 
equivalent 
of 
showing children porn to “start 
the 
conversation” 
about 
safe 
sex. Starting a conversation is 
important, but so is facilitating it 
and making sure that something 
comes out of it. Content like the 
scene in “Thirteen Reasons Why” 
might have encouraged some 
people to learn more and engage in 
meaningful dialogue, but for most 
people, it just becomes something 
shocking to tweet about before 
losing interest. It is naive to assume 
that after watching a graphic scene 
in a television show, viewers will 
engage in meaningful dialogue 
about the scene and then go on to 
become some kind of activist for 
whatever issue or topic the scene 
covered. More often than not, 
viewers become traumatized by 
what they watch and discuss the 
scene rather than the trauma itself 
and then forget about it.
This is clear even when 
examining how people react to 
the news: People have become 

so desensitized to horrific events 
such as mass shootings that while 
they might initially feel awful 
when hearing about such an event 
and discuss it, many people tend 
to forget about the event and move 
on with their lives. This isn’t to 
say that the news shouldn’t report 
about such events. However, the 
news has shown us that simply 
showing people horrible things 
that happen to others does not 
result in real change.
While 
media 
depicting 
graphic scenes might have more 
shock value and more potential to 
become viral and, thus, reach more 
people, it doesn’t do anything 
but shock people before being 
forgotten. In order to encourage 
people to discuss issues in an 
impactful way, we must direct 
them so that know even where 
to start considering, conversing 
and changing. For example, if 
“Thirteen Reasons Why” hadn’t 
shown that scene, and had 
instead perhaps only alluded to 
such an event happening (after 
inserting a hefty trigger warning) 
and had followed it up with an 
unavoidable discussion between 
the cast member and experts or 
statistics about sexual assault, the 
show might have succeeded in 
creating and facilitating an actual, 
meaningful conversation about 
sexual assault.
People need to be given 
direction when asked to deal with 
complex problems. It’s lazy to 
drop a bombshell on unsuspecting 
viewers and then essentially leave 
them to figure everything out by 
themselves. Instead, we must 
educate people about certain 
topics without traumatizing or 
triggering them and then offer 
ways in which they can help, 
such as by providing the names of 
certain organizations that work 
towards change or the names of 
proposed pieces of legislature 
people can help support. Starting 
a conversation is important, but 
it only helps if there are people 
willing to act following it.

Don’t just “start the conversation”

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kryshur@umich.edu.

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
 Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA 
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board. 
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

What conservatives get wrong about identity politics

AARON BAKER | COLUMN

N

othing evokes a more 

visceral reaction from 

modern 
conservatives 

than political correctness and 

identity 
politics. 
Conservatives 

often point to the annoyance of 

identity 
politics 
and 
political 

correctness as the reason for 

President 
Donald 
Trump’s 

election. Jonah Goldberg, fellow 

and Asness Chair in Applied 

Liberty at American Enterprise 

Institute, explained how identity 

politics are destroying Western 

civilization as we know it in his 

book “Suicide of the West: How the 

Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, 

Nationalism, and Identity Politics is 

Destroying American Democracy.” 

Similarly, the popular intellectual 

Jordan Peterson decries political 

correctness and identity politics 

as “Marxist,” “totalitarian” and 

“postmodern.” Peterson is only 

right that political correctness and 

identity politics are postmodern, 

however, 
that 
shouldn’t 
scare 

conservatives. Most opposition to 

political correctness and so-called 

identity politics is rooted in 

misperceptions.

Conservatives 
and 
critics 

of 
political 
correctness 
and 

identity politics argue the two 

movements 
are 
symptoms 
of 

cultural 
collectivism. 
Political 

correctness and identity politics 

supporters, according to many 

conservatives, view life through the 

reductive lens of race, gender and 

sexuality in which everything is a 

power struggle, creating only the 

oppressors and the oppressed. To 

conservatives, those who talk about 

racism or sexism are only thinking 

about their membership in a group 

— a modern form of tribalism. It 

is this tribalism that challenges 

the pillars of Western civilization, 

specifically 
the 
Enlightenment 

values of individual rights and 

rationality.

When 
conservatives 
deride 

identity politics, they eschew any 

political discourse that touches 

on 
prejudice. 
All 
democratic 

politics 
are 
coalition-based 
in 

some way, requiring appeals to 

voting coalitions that are often, in 

some way, identity-based. What 

conservatives 
deem 
identity 

politics is simply politics that 

discuss racism, sexism, xenophobia 

or any issues created by prejudicial 

thinking in some way, and political 

correctness is simply an effort to 

use language and concepts that 

are more inclusive and fairer. 

The goals and effects of identity 

politics and political correctness 

are primarily about individualism, 

which 
conservatives 
rightly 

support. 
Of 
course, 
identity 

politics and political correctness 

can go too far, but the core ideas of 

political correctness and identity 

politics are valid and necessary.

The 
Enlightenment 
was 

a 
multifaceted 
intellectual 

movement 
that 
produced 
a 

wide array of ideas. I would say 

conservatives are right when they 

talk about Enlightenment values 

of individualism and rationality 

and the benefits they provide 

democracies around the world. 

The only problem is the idea of the 

rational individual that comes from 

the Enlightenment has historically 

been qualified and limited. White 

men were considered as rational, 

autonomous agents, but everyone 

else was perceived as inferior, less 

rational and less autonomous.

The fact that the Enlightenment 

championed 
empiricism 
and 

scientific discovery is something 

to be celebrated, as the human 

condition has improved immensely 

since the Scientific Revolution. But 

there were two problems. The first 

was that scientific knowledge in 

the 1700s was limited and flawed. 

Second was that the Enlightenment 

created 
scientism, 
in 
which 

scientific truths discovered and 

verified about the natural world 

are applied to social realities. The 

result was shoddy science used 

to justify oppressive ideologies 

that 
categorized 
humans 
and 

dictated how they should live and 

interact with others. This thinking 

ultimately 
produced 
Social 

Darwinism, scientific racism and 

biologically-justified 
sexism 
in 

the 19th and 20th century, the 

remnants of which are still alive in 

our society today.

Postmodernism 
says 
there 

are no absolute truths in social 

realities, 
only 
constructs 
and 

human inventions. There are truths 

in the scientific world, but they 

are irrelevant for how humans 

should live their lives. Biological 

differences 
between 
individual 

humans or groups of humans are 

largely irrelevant in a social or 

political setting.

As Yuval Noah Harari writes 

in his book “Sapiens: A Brief 

History of Humankind,” humans 

have used their cognition to 

imagine social realities, stories 

and structures since the so-called 

cognitive revolution some 30,000 

years ago. These social realities 

allowed Homo sapiens to organize 

themselves in ways other animals 

were 
unable 
to, 
advantaging 

humans and allowing them to 

climb the food chain. According 

to Harari, this is the primary 

difference between humans and 

other animals: We can invent 

social realities that override our 

underlying biological impulses in 

determining human action and 

organization.

Postmodernism is cognizant of 

the construction of social realities 

— a process wherein language 

plays an important role. Therefore, 

political correctness and identity 

politics seek to use language to 

challenge historic schemas. These 

dictate human behavior based on 

group identities — race, gender or 

others — that were bequeathed 

to us from the scientism of the 

past. 
Postmodernism 
tells 
us 

one’s 
phenotype, 
reproductive 

organs, sexuality or other traits 

are irrelevant to an individual’s 

capabilities 
or 
personalities, 

leaving them to carve their own 

fates.

The individualism so many 

conservatives champion is thus 

an incomplete idea of what it 

means to be an individual. It is 

only concerned with individualism 

between citizen and government, 

as envisioned by the vertical 

social contract of John Locke. 

This is totally legitimate as the 

worst crimes against humanity 

have 
been 
committed 
by 

tyrannical governments. Liberty 

and 
individualism 
require 

examining the lateral relationships 

between people, especially where 

majorities can oppress minorities 

by creating social realities that 

limit, categorize and essentialize 

them. Conservatives can do a 

good job in acknowledging the 

former, but fail to do so in the 

latter. Likewise, liberals can be 

guilty of the opposite: succeeding 

in challenging oppressive social 

norms and language, but remaining 

unconcerned 
with 
unchecked 

government power and coercion.

There’s room for a middle 

ground in the polarized debate over 

political correctness. Conservatives 

who care about individual liberty 

should consider the possibilities 

of 
adopting 
postmodern 
ideas 

prevalent on college campuses. 

For 
social 
conservatives, 

postmodernism is likely a hard pill 

to swallow. But for conservatives 

who prioritize low taxes or an active 

foreign policy, political correctness 

and postmodernism don’t have to 

be strongly opposed. By ceding all 

postmodern ideas to liberals and 

progressives, 
conservatives 
are 

losing potential allies.

Likewise, liberals who engage 

in censorship and social media 

shaming are also losing potential 

allies. Harmful speech should 

be countered by better speech. 

Protesters who stopped Charles 

Murray’s 
speech 
on 
campus 

probably didn’t convince anyone 

who agreed with his pseudo-

scientific, 
prejudice-enabling 

ideas. Forcing people to use the 

right language won’t convince 

them the ideas behind the changes 

in language are valid, and the 

oppressive concepts will persist.

Changing language and social 

norms can help alter unconscious 

bias, 
according 
to 
research 

suggesting language shapes the 

way we think. But if people don’t 

believe the change in norms or 

language is necessary or even 

valid, then different language will 

be adopted to produce the same 

oppressive effects.

Aaron Baker can be reached at 

aaronbak@umich.edu.

SAM SUGERMAN | COLUMN
T

hroughout 
history, 
society 
has 
frequently 
utilized 
the 
band-aid 
method – we love a quick fix. In 1863, 
William Banting wrote the “Letter 
on Corpulence,” popularizing fad 
diets for the first time. Instead of 
promoting a reduction in sugar intake 
or encouraging exercise, Banting 
believed the cure to corpulence, or 
obesity, was a low-carbohydrate diet. 
Banting’s work precipitated the rise 
of the dieting industry, now worth 
$66.3 billion per year; however, even 
today global obesity is on the rise. For 
centuries, society has sought a single 
quick-fix to multiplex issues, like 
obesity, by creating oversimplified 
solutions that erroneously promise 
easy results instead of focusing on the 
situation as a whole.
Today, the complex issue we 
confront is plastic pollution in our 
oceans and the need to preserve 
these vital bodies of water for the 
future of our planet. Plastic in the 
oceans has begun to infiltrate our 
food system and kill sea life with no 
end in sight. Over the last 65 years, 
plastic use has increased 200-fold. 
Instead of addressing the crisis as a 
whole, we have fragmented the issue. 
Following the 2015 video “‘No’ to 
Plastic Straws,” society has shifted its 
attention to the elimination of plastic 
straws, the biggest trend of 2018. In 
doing so, we have ignored other more 
significant perpetrators of pollution 
that are killing the oceans.
The 
eradication 
of 
plastic 
straws intends to prevent the 
pervasive issue of plastic pollution 
in our oceans, but there is no such 
thing as a simple solution to a 
complex issue. Multifold problems 
cannot be fragmented. The oceans 
cannot be salvaged strictly by 
getting rid of all plastic straws, a 
small part of the problem.
As a society, we have to fully 
evaluate the causes of plastic 
pollution 
and 
take 
responsive 
actions targeted toward attaining 
the most efficacious and positive 
outcomes while mitigating the 
effects, no matter how arduous 
the process may be. The complete 
eradication of plastic straws is 
unlikely because people living 
with disabilities rely on plastic 
straws to assist in their dietary 
intake. However, even if activists 

succeed, plastic straws only make 
up a lowly 0.025 percent of the 
estimated 8 million tons of plastic 
that pollute the oceans annually. 
According to USA Today, straws 
were seventh on the list of items 
collected on 2017’s International 
Coastal Cleanup Day, far behind 
wrappers, bottles with caps, and 
bags. It is not plastic straws that 
are the issue, it’s plastic in general. 
Society is magnifying the issue of 
straws and, in doing so, distracting 
attention and remediation efforts 
from more significant polluters. In 
fact, the abatement of plastic straws 
will not lead to a concurrent decline 
in pollution as total plastic pollution 
is projected to triple by 2025.
Supporters of “The Last Practice 
Straw” movement, however, assert 
plastic straws are a gateway to 
the larger issue of global plastic 
consumption 
and 
pollution, 
an 
issue so grave that by 2050 plastic 
is projected to outweigh fish in the 
ocean. Except it is just not working. 
People are evidently rationalizing 
their use of other plastics because 
they no longer use plastic straws. 
Travis 
Bradberry, 
author 
of 
“Emotional 
Intelligence 
2.0,” 
recognizes this human tendency as 
the compensation effect. “Humans 
use good deeds to balance out 
bad deeds, or alternately, we give 
ourselves breaks from goodness,” 
Bradberry writes. Therefore, when 
a person stops using plastic straws, 
they accumulate an assumed moral 
capital that they then use to justify 
other 
environmentally-damaging 
actions.
I myself have fallen victim 
to this effect. Earlier this year, a 
friend noticed my metal straws 
leaning against my box of granola 
bars, each individually covered in 
a plastic wrapper. He commented 
on the irony of this display. I 
irrationally justified the excess use 
of plastic, touting my refusal to 
use plastic straws. I had assembled 
so much moral capital that I 
blinded myself to how my other 
choices detrimentally affected the 
environment. This mindset begets 
disaster for our oceans.
We are fighting a losing and 
distracting battle. Even if we 
eradicate 
plastic 
straws, 
total 
pollution in the oceans will become 

only a scintilla less. It is time 
we create a strategy to actually 
curtail 
total 
plastic 
pollution. 
The elimination of plastic straws 
is a simple solution that, while 
positive in its minor impact on 
the environment, merely focuses 
on a single and small aspect of 
all 
oceanic 
plastic 
pollution. 
Regrettably, this focus on just a 
facet of the problem detrimentally 
increases an individual’s assumed 
moral capital and prevents a more 
comprehensive solution.
It is estimated there are 15 to 
51 trillion pieces of microplastics 
in the ocean and an additional 5.25 
trillion visible pieces of other plastic. 
The Pacific Ocean has an “island” 
of plastic that is three times the 
size of France. For real change, it is 
critical that we confront the plastic 
epidemic head-on, instead of fighting 
a minimally-impactful battle on the 
side.
I 
recognize 
plastic 
straws 
are unique in the fact they are 
lightweight and can slide through 
mechanical recycling sorters. I 
acknowledge they are a contributing 
factor to plastic pollution and I 
applaud every person and company 
that has phased plastic straws out, 
but we must consider this only a first 
step, not a finish line. To establish 
real change, we cannot just focus 
on straws. Since the first recorded 
fad diet in 1863, we have focused on 
creating simple solutions to complex 
societal problems and it has not 
worked. Society must learn from its 
failures and focus not on the easy fad 
response, but rather the often more 
difficult, comprehensive solution. 
The campaign to #StopSucking is not 
entirely cutting it, instead, we must 
#StopUsing. Decreasing our plastic 
footprint will take diligence, from 
refusing a plastic-wrapped snack to 
carrying a reusable bag and bottle.
It is vital to the longevity of 
our oceans and humanity that we 
change the norms of our everyday 
lives and challenge those of others. 
Eliminating plastic straws is not 
enough, because there is no such 
thing as a simple solution or magical 
elixir to resolve the issue of plastic 
pollution.

A bad solution to pollution

 Sam Sugerman can be reached at 

samsug@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the 
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 
300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 
words. Send the writer’s full name and University 
affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

There’s room 
for a middle 
ground in the 
polarized debate 
over political 
correctness

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

