First they came for Kevin Myers, I/you didn’t notice/care.
Then they came for George Hook. I liked tweet x, posted a comment of y value on Facebook re: z or something something.
Then they came for …
Who is next?
You might not like or care about any of these personalities. You might agree with them entirely on any given day, half of what they say or none of it at all whenever. You might be happy to see them hung drawn and quartered in the court of public opinion held at the temple Circus Media Maximus. However whichever way you roll, it’s really not the point is it?
However it now appears to be entirely acceptable in growing media, social circles and top political office to call for the head of anybody of any notable *profile for whatever real or imagined transgression is claimed, all this being very quickly followed by full on character assassination administered by swarming packs of identiy-differantied cyber snipers patroling the social-cyber alleys and boulevards like vigilantes of social justice with threats also levelled at sponsors/employers. All the time those involved inhabiting a zealotry of immense beyond reproach moral conviction in the pursuit of seeing the flagged targets livelihood/career obliterated to dust in full public spectacle often minus an equivalent defense.
Yet is it merely satisfy the baying cyber-mobs call for social justice to be done over a perceived slight, transgressions or tyrannical oppression of the hyper-patriarchy or something more?
What and when is enough enough?
Who truly pays in the end?
When are apologies not enough?
What if there is a mistake?
There are many more question besides.
Theses implications do not settle for good once flesh and blood tribute has been extolled on the socio-sacrificial altar, again “Who is next?” are you watching over your shoulder and worried about your job because you have a constitutionally protected opinion?
Such is it that in this kangaroo court of public opinion it seems guilty until proven guiltyis the sole insta-verdict, punishable by virtual death.
It seem evidently clear that these are not civil actions in the legal sense and broader. This is not what might be understood to be civil discourse. They, are not civil.
Therfore such behaviour absent the hallmarks of civility can only be deemed as entirely violent, so violent a tactic to be akin to nothing but acts of all out war. It’s Kill, Kill, KILL!
*I will add one caveat: I’m not entirely surely this phenomena ever affects to politicians all that much or they seem deftly able to negate these things by being better protected somehow, well in Ireland anyhow. There are of course exceptions to this too!