will forever be thinking about the day this queen pathologized (not literally, of course, as attributing bigotry and performativity to an medical ailment, therein implying it is not an active choice would be abhorrentβ¦she simply used it as metaphor that iβm taking a riff off of π€) performative liberalism as the disease it truly is ππ½ when conservatives say βliberalism is a disease,β i tend to sigh because while we can agree on performativity being insufferable, they tend to refer to the progressive ideologies that performative liberals only purport to hold, but she said it after the following remark: you know whatβs the right thing to do. you know what youβre supposed to be saying, posting, doing in a circumstance and yet you donβt necessarily feel it all the way in your bones because you want everybody to think [that youβre a good person].β said remark also took a second hit at performativity culture (which whitney caters to, of course, as do all she reflects in the sense that none of them care about social justice, so thereβs that aspect, but accompanying it is the fact that have established tenets of morality based on the antithesis of activism and progressivism (like claiming statements and pins are the former).
do yβall ever think about how disturbing it is that they all just perform for one another constantly, yet genuinely feel a sense of moral superiority when they one-up someone on a topic they donβt give a fuck about? donβt mind my digression, but i am in utter disbelief that this phenomenon isnβt deemed utterly horrific and rather, treated with banality: whatβs more, itβs embraced. anyway, the bit about posts and statements refers to the fact that theyβll shriek things like βif youβre not speaking about- code for giving a substance-lacking and often reactionary statement- about a [trending social issue everyone forgets when they decide to move on to a new subject for virtual signaling π] then youβre complicit! we need to rAiSe AwArEnEsS!β when raising awareness, of course, would consist of thoroughly exposing, interrogating, and condemning a social injustice, but that kind of work takes effort and an extensive amount of time. they have no interest in that.
anyway, this is one of my favorite remarks of all time that i NEVER thought iβd hear from someone outside the disappointing use of it by the right wing, but iβd expect nothing less from the woman who stated (no hypocrisy here given she speaks of the most disruptive piece of cinematic activism weβll ever see: a fully truthful and thus, inherently brutal characterization of performative liberalism that is unprecedented because the sickeningly concentrated cesspool of performativity that is hollywood is too cowardly and too complicit to not sympathize it, let alone condemn it to the full extent: βget outβ is a nice intro to the subject, but comes nowhere close to examining the performative mechanism and its every maddening detail, though i donβt think it intended to, so this is in no way a diss) and more importantly SHOWED through action that performative liberalism-especially that of the white variety given it converges with the ever-insidious combination of white superiority and white savior complexes (another quick side note as i seem to have a proclivity for rambling: the latter is always the former but the former can exist without being the latter. think of white saviors as squares and white supremacists as rectangles. all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares)- is a, and i quote with pleasure, βhorror.β
bonus and rather depressing fact: people actually laughed when she described it as such (again, what the actual fuck is wrong with society? clearly a rhetorical question, but jesus CHRIST-) but she stood tend toes behind her correct description with an βit IS!!β iβll have to make a gif out of that soon :)
