It occurred to me recently that a huge number of people, especially those who maintain an online presence for work reasons, skirt around discussing sensitive issues because they’re afraid to offend people. It’s incredibly ironic, since the people whose opinions are the most likely to cause offense are usually the loudest on every platform.

It’s never easy to talk about a school shooting. It’s the most senseless form of hate crime imaginable. Yet, for some people, it seems even harder to talk about the attack on the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on August 27. 

There are a few deviations from the usual pattern here. This time, the school that became the site of this violent tragedy was religiously affiliated. Also, the shooter happened to identify as a trans woman. So they don’t fit the typical “straight white male” profile of most mass shooters in the US word-for-word.

Nothing that we’ve seen so far from the field indicates that either of these things had any impact on the shooter’s motivations. According to acting US attorney Joe Thompson, “The shooter expressed hate towards Black people, the shooter expressed hate towards Mexican people, the shooter expressed hate towards Christian people, the shooter expressed hate towards Jewish people. In short, the shooter appeared to hate all of us.”

In all likelihood, the shooter was motivated purely by a desire for notoriety. They were even part of an online subculture that worshipped mass shooters. If anything, their online history reveals interactions with a community that was mostly transphobic.

But that doesn’t stop the bad takes. Right-wing “influencers” soon flooded the internet with opinions about how this was part of some larger trans shooting epidemic. Yet another target painted on the back of every kid who identifies as LGBTQ. All because political leaders can’t get their act together on gun reform.

Bigots are louder than ever, but rational voices seem to have gotten quieter.

Brands, apathy, and you

Evante Daniels, CSO at a cultural intelligence firm called SEEQER, recently wrote something that stuck with me. “Culture doesn’t care more about Cracker Barrel than about children killed in church. But platforms do.” It makes sense. Social platforms, search engines, and even media outlets are designed for virality because their business models rely on visibility rather than impact. So, they selectively push news items that are more likely to drive likes and comments, not the ones that matter more to people.

I’ve often talked to people about how I feel nostalgic for the early 2000s version of the internet. When people blogged about things because it gave them fulfilment. When they took to social media because they wanted to be heard. Now, it feels like there’s fewer people on the internet than there are faceless brands and algorithms. 

Back in 2014, when people still believed that the internet had the potential to break establishment-al taboos and foster more open conversations, the Pew Research Center conducted a study on the Snowden leaks to see how likely people were to express their opinions on socials if they didn’t want to talk about the issue in person.

Among the number of people who weren’t willing to discuss Snowden in public, less than 0.5% were willing to post about it on Facebook or Twitter. Clearly, the internet wasn’t the free speech sanctuary everyone thought it was. They also found that most people were only likely to discuss Snowden if they were confident about their followers agreeing with them. This doesn’t surprise me, a chronically online person who often finds that the echo chambers are far worse here than IRL.

So, there was likely never a time when it was safer to voice your opinions online than in public. But it’s definitely gotten worse as the internet has been aggressively commercialized.

Conscious people build better systems

This isn’t some misguided hot take about how brands need to be “more real” in their online interactions. Brands will do the same thing they’ve always done – which is the thing that supports their bottom line.

People, on the other hand, can afford to think outside of profits. They can educate themselves, raise their voices, and even organize movements that shape the systems of the future. But not if they are too afraid of the brands and their algorithms.

Look, I get it. It’s difficult to post your well-intentioned raw opinion on a controversial subject when you know your pathologically intrusive boss could bring it up with you during the next performance review. No one wants to be fired over a personal opinion that may not even make a difference. And no one wants to look like a douchebag when their lack of immediate cultural sensitivity offends everyone far and wide. 

So instead, they clam up. They keep their mouths shut. They continue talking about organic protein supplements even when their conscience begs them to get real in the face of a devastating tragedy. 

It’s why you didn’t like talking about your student debt. It’s why you kept your opinions to yourself on the genocide in Palestine. And now it’s why you don’t want to talk about gun control after a mass shooting that had nothing to do with gender identity is being weaponized against trans kids. It just feels so much safer to stick to talking about protein supplements.

Resources to inform conversations

If you’re worried about ridicule, silence is not the answer. All it does is embolden the same corporations and algorithms that built a system around downplaying human tragedy and uplifting a capitalist dystopia.

So, I want to offer an alternative. I’ve been a journalist on the internet for about 8 years now. Worked with a lot of publications around tons of sensitive topics, from ecological disasters that aggravate domestic violence to medical professionals sexually harassing trans people with cancer. Over time, I’ve learned a lot about getting better at discussing controversial subjects without causing hurt or offense to vulnerable populations. 

Yes, I made mistakes sometimes. But, I had editors who held my hand through difficult conversations and explained what was okay and what was not. They taught me how to interview sources with trauma, write about self harm in a way that’s compassionate, and a whole lot more. 

Here’s a collection of resources that I know journalists refer to when figuring out how to discuss sensitive topics without promoting stigma and hate. I hope they help you get better at understanding social cues around sensitive conversations and give you the courage to speak openly about the issues that deserve our attention.

• The Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting Toolkit

• Trans Journalists Association’s Stylebook and Coverage Guide

• Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide

• Race Reporting Guide by Race Forward

• The CDC’s Guide to Reporting on Sexual Violence

• Covering Climate Change Equitably: The Solutions Project

There are plenty more resources like these. While most serve primarily as guidelines for reporters and journalists, any person (or rebellious brand) who’s creating content for the internet or even offline can take notes from them. If you’re a person with good intentions who was holding back on difficult issues because they worried about offending people, I hope this helps you. 

Be bold. Be brave. And don’t let the bad guys win.