Felicia Sonmez is the latest example of an insidious trend. Credit: Fox News
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Thumbnail-Example-1-2-100x100.png)
Picture a huge, poisonous fruit falling to the ground, its skin splitting open, the rancid pulp pouring out. Picture the ants discovering the mess, swarming over it, drunk on the abundance in front of them — and far too preoccupied with their feasting to ever look up at the tree it fell from.
It’s an apt metaphor for what happens during one of the public meltdowns that double as free entertainment for the extremely online. The splatter of drama, the rush to consume, the way we pick over every last sordid detail of the controversy until there’s no meat left. What we miss is that the details hardly matter, as individually fascinating as they may be; indeed, a large part of this problem is that we only ever talk about it in terms of its most recent iteration. We obsess over the individual characters — the Bean Dad, the Racist Cheerleader, the Guy Who Didn’t Cum On His Cat (the internet remains unpersuaded) — yet fail to grasp that they’re all starring in the same self-perpetuating tragedy.
Granted, some characters make this drama more riveting than others, and last week’s iteration was a peak example of the form. Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez waged a six-day war of attrition over a colleague’s retweet of an off-colour joke.
The offensiveness (or entertainment value) of the joke itself is a matter of taste. What quickly became clear, however, is that the joke was not the point. The problem was what it represented: the mere tip of an imagined vast, sexist iceberg lurking below the surface. Some claimed that it signalled the hidden sexism of the reporter, Dave Weigel, who retweeted it; others, including Sonmez, insisted that it was symbolic of a deep-seated culture of misogyny in the Washington Post itself. This type of projection is intrinsic to such online controversies: nobody ever makes a one-off mistake, everything is part of pattern. (When John Roderick, now better known as Bean Dad, tried to create a teachable moment by getting his daughter to work out the machinations of a can opener without help, internet scolds were so incensed that they reported him to Child Protective Services.)
We watched the action like a TV show: the callout, the apology, the suspension of the colleague (for a full month without pay) when the apology was deemed insufficient, the escalating demands from Sonmez (who not only supported Weigel’s suspension, but wanted everyone who publicly criticised her public criticism to be professionally sanctioned as well). All this, combined with a series of leaks from inside the increasingly-exasperated Washington Post leadership apparatus, built to a climax as hotly-debated as the series finale of LOST. How could they possibly fire her? How could they possibly not?
The immolation of Sonmez’s career seemed simultaneously inevitable and impossible, right up until the moment when it happened. And when it did, we swarmed. We feasted. And then, within days, we moved on — our appetite for drama sated, but the point thoroughly missed.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is a magnificent piece of writing.
It really is. Bravo!
The quality of writing here is superb. Not found elsewhere, even stuff you disagree with still makes you think.
Not really. Instead of clearly and succinctly exposing the moral and ethical rules at play and arriving at lessons of wisdom from this event, the author just goes on and on speculating about the behaviour and character and motivations of the people at play and her own reactions, with flowery low-information language. Long winding and uninteresting article on a very interesting subject. Some identity of writers wrongly confuse content with language, and assume embellished language can supplant the message.
I’m the same age as Felicia Somnez. Much to the annoyance of my very patient friends, I went through a social-justice-warrior phase when I was in my 20s, well before it was popular. I’m sure I was a bit of a bore, but I got over it – I’m still an old-school leftie though, and that won’t change – more Keir Hardie than Keir Starmer. Now with kids at home, I see that the whole social-justice philosophy if you like – the metaphysics, the epistemology, and the ethics – are built on unreal assumptions. You can ignore the reality for a while, but eventually, the consequences of ignoring that reality do catch up with you.
But there are some people obviously who have not outgrown this phase of their lives. They perceive every slight to be a cosmic injustice. They are privileged people – in academia, media, government, and yet they see themselves as victims. When something very trivial (tweets) goes wrong, they want their boss / HR / the government to fix it, instead of trying to be the author of their own destinies. This is a catastrophic way to manage adulthood, and it leads to the kind of destructive spiral seen recently in the Washington Post.
Well said. I got off Facebook a couple of years ago. I grew tired of expressing my views and then being attacked for not being supportive of the narcissistic virtue signaling of others. People that do that are not worth “friending.”
In Scotland an official of the Scottish Government wanted to make e.g. conversations at the domestic breakfast table subject to State censorship. Coming to an election near you very soon.
HIs name is Humza Yousaf, and he’s on Wikipedia (see esp. section on ‘Hate Crime Bill’ – last sentence).
You are spot on about the whole of the SNP Government not just Yousaf in the way that they would like to enforce with the Speech Police.
Having been a farmer in England, a local politician in Scotland and a planner; I am now 75 and my view has always been is to trust everyone when I first meet them and see if that view is maintained as I know them better. Most people are decent in reality and we will rue the day if social media makes people go the way the author is suggesting in her excellent piece.
I do that too! It’s resulted in me sometimes being let down by people, but generally it’s a good approach to take in my view, and much less cynical.
it also means I decline to speculate or gossip about someone if their treatment of me is reasonable, and will voice disagreement on that basis. That stops ‘em in their tracks!
I remember reading about the Somnez thing (probably on Unherd) when it first kicked off, but had not heard that she’d been fired.
So that’s one bit of good news this morning, followed by my familiar sense of relief that I’ve never had a Twitter account, whenever I read of the mindless, trivial drivel that seems to be its raison d’être.
The first time I encountered the ‘where are you from offence’ was way back in the late 80s/early 90s while at university in Canada. I’d become heavily involved in the International Students Association and found the mix of nationalities and cultures of fellow members fascinating. I developed some good friendships, some of which last to this day. One night, while I was tending bar at one of our events, a guy of East Asian descent came up and ordered a beer. I couldn’t make out an accent because of the music and presume he didn’t hear my Scottish one. I asked ‘where are you from?’ in a friendly manner anticipating a brief exchange about our respective points of origin, what made us both come to Canada, maybe segueing into my time previously living in SE Asia. Point was it was an attempt at dialogue based on expectation of mutual shared experience, so when he stopped smiling and coldly replied, ‘I’m from here in Canada’, I was embarrassed in the way that only students in their early 20s can be. I stumbled inexpertly over an explanation that I’m not from Canada, that I realised that Canadian born people come from a range of ethnic backgrounds but that, given that this was an international students’ event, I assumed most people attending were, like me, from elsewhere. He seemed to accept that and started smiling again.
I get that things can be misconstrued but back in the day, we had no social media to tell us what to be offended by and to amplify that, often confected, offence. The point is that awkward mutual misunderstanding between that guy and me was resolved because an understanding of context and intent still existed. We’ve created a social dystopia, particularly for young people.
I’m always interested in the context of people in order to be able to have interesting conversations, with a bit of playfulness once mutual understanding begins. So I as a matter of course use the ‘where are you from?’ query, but with more subtlety and tact. It helps to be well informed about other cultures and sensitive to the ‘latest’ views on what is appropriate phrasing – for example if I found out someone is from Belgium I might reference something neutral about the Walloons to gauge a reaction. My experience is that people really like it when you show some understanding of their origin culture.
Like you I’m a Scot, with a strong accent, and this may have provided me with a ‘licence’ to have such discussions – in turn, no one ever thinks it odd to assume I come from Scotland, when I’ve lived in England for 40 years, and I take great delight in expressing disappointment that my English accent needs more work on it! The irony goes over the heads of most people.
The only person who ever suggested I was taking risks in having such discussions was a white English woman who worried about these things, and I ignored her.
I highly recommend Jaron Lanier’s book, “Delete Your Accounts”. I had 8,000 followers on Twitter and was genuinely addicted to it. My mental state was as paranoid and twisted as what you described in your wonderful (as always) essay (I subscribed to Unherd because of your articles – also love your novels).
I thought those 8,000 followers meant something. You know what? They meant nothing – they didn’t even exist in my actual life. With one click – poof!- they all disappeared. And my mental state gradually healed.
Social media is poison. It is truly destroying our ability to see the wholeness of one another – and has allowed us to fall for the delusion of Identity Politics. No human being can be accurately read as a political symbol – we are far to complex and miraculous for that.
Anyway, thank you for another great essay.
To anyone else reading this: delete your accounts.
You’ll be glad you did.
I always look forward to your comments, Penny.
‘Stolen Focus’ is another book worth reading if your interested in the damage these accounts and distractions do to your brain and soul.
That being said, you should have your own sunstack! You’re a great writer with terrific insight.
I deleted my social media in 2010. Best thing I ever did
I “detranstioned” from social media last year and feel much better for it
Yep, all binned several years ago. Never even went near Twitter as it looked utterly toxic!
Account free since JAN 2021. It’s like I had forgotten what real life was like. Never could go back.
This way of judging people on mere (supposed) intent (“proces d’intention” in French) reminds me of the Spanish inquisition : the conclusion is precluded, and all following discourse is a ineluctable process to demonstrate the awfulness of the character of the offender, and of course exercise a “just” vengeance upon them.
The intolerence of the “perpetually offended” is shilling.
It’s even worse than that. “Intent” often is irrelevant. For example, if you quote the title of a book that has a particular racist slur, or if you repeat the same slur in a conversation about how someone else used said slur, you’re a goner (if you’re white). Some “authorities” have made it quite clear that they simply don’t care about intent, the only thing that matters is impact.
She was self entitled moron. And social media revealed the truth. It is not a an erosion of our faith in humanity. It is an example of over inflated ego. It is raw narcissism. the malady of our age, in it’s most visceral from the self righteous female aka a young Karen.
Romanians whom I have the pleasure to know, in Britain, cannot believe how we are actually, via Conservative legislation, and American internet culture are actually waving in the type of totalitarian and oppressive country that they had imposed on them…. “Your people just do not respect the freedoms that they have” said one…
I think Felicia Sonmez’s real problem with the joke was that it hit too close to home. At a minimum she falls into the bi-polar camp, and who knows, she might fall into both.
Like most humor, it’s funny because it plays on stereotypes, in this case 2 different ones about 2 different generations of women. Considering the number of “men are brutes” or “henpecked husband” jokes that are out there, a woman offended by this needs to grow a thicker skin.
In truth, I do wish Felicia well, and I hope she learns from this experience. I doubt she will, but one can hope.
Well, she did do a great job of proving those stereotypes about women to be wrong.
I don’t thing the joke is particularly funny, and it is mildly offensive, however, the difference between Ms Sonmez and myself is – I don’t care if it is tweeted, re-tweeted or sung from the highest mountain.
I thought the joke was silly, but trying to destroy someone’s career over retweeting it is horrifying. It wasn’t even that offensive, but even retweeting an offensive joke is not grounds for firing or suspending someone.
What aggravates me is that these are often the same people who sanctimonious argue against incarcerating violent predators because “we are all more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”
First of all, I do not think we are all more than the worst thing we’ve ever done (a child molester will never be more than the harm he has done) but most of us don’t commit such horrific crimes, and we are all certainly all more than telling an offensive joke FFS.
The Woke crowd have their priorities completely screwed up.
It’s the Washington Post, what else should one expect?
There is darkness in all of us. We are all flawed human beings who are capable of selfishness, hate and taking pleasure in the misfortune of others. We should be judged by what we do and how we strive to be moral in spite of our flawed nature – not whether we have negative impulses and biases. These ideas are all lost to history. Nowadays there are only good people and bad people – one of the three great untruths of our time, as Haidt and Lukianoff have written. Of course none of us could survive such scrutiny – cancellation depends not on your character but on whether the swarm turns on you or not. So keep calling out others, lest you become the target.
I wonder. Is it that social media actually gives access? Or is it that social media is, itself, inherently untrustworthy because that is the fundamental assumption people approach it with. Perhaps there is distrust because of social media, not in spite of it. Perhaps social media is just that: media. It is something that can be manipulated by the user to present whatever facade is desirable at the moment and everyone knows (or at least suspects) that.
I am not afraid people using social media are thinking things they are not expressing. I KNOW the things they are expressing for the vast majority are not. The purpose of social media to the masses is not the expression of inner thoughts, but the gathering of “likes” and “up votes” and (in this case) “retweets”. To be a successful social media “influencer”, I’m not going to say what I want to say…I’m going to say what my audience wants to hear. Or at least I’m only going to broadcast those of my thoughts that I think will drive the most positive outcome from my “followers.”
Kat is right. There is no forgiveness for the mistaken tweet. But that is not because we have lost the ability to recognize that all of us are complex animals that house a multitude of contradictions. It is because we must punish anyone that breaks the fundamental “tweet-verse” rule: only publish what your followers want to see. How dare anyone actually be real?
I do feel there is an undercurrent of fear in workplaces now. The MeeToo movement means women are less likely to be harassed and bothered by men at work – a big win – but men are now much less likely to engage in any kind of personal interaction (workplace banter, etc) with them either – especially if they are younger. This is the cost. The problem is the tendency of people to attribute the worst intentions on others as noted by the author. In an HR setting this means you really are in a difficult spot if someone claims something you did was ‘inappropriate.’ One of my gay colleagues was formally reprimanded in his annual review for making fun of some aspects of gay culture to his staff. Someone complained. So no more joking in front of staff.
A must needed “step in the right direction” for Somnez and her kind.
People are growing tired of this narcissistic virtue signaling behavior that has swept our societies. Corporate workplaces have become unwitting victims of the media, academia and government power elites who praise the likes of Somnez, who call out those that do not step in line. Her actions and those of her ilk, continue to perpetuate and promote the thought police environment that’s so prevalent today.
Great article! The comments that follow show there’s hope we will find our way out of this “5hit show” that has befallen us. Maybe this recession or depression that’s about to take hold be the impetus needed to wake up the WOKE!
Joke Update:
Most women are bi. You just have to figure out if it’s sexual, polar, or Felecia.
This has consumed my thoughts for a number of years now, ever since I noticed how willing governments were to monitor their people in every capacity.
women of course say far worse about men and get a ticker tape parade for doing so- clearly what she was counting on.
Did anyone watch the cheerleader video on YouTube? It was a tad perplexing. My take on the ‘scalp ‘em’ chant was that it must be the US equivalent of burly lads on latter day footie terraces shouting ‘you’re gonna get your furkinedskickedin’, only by young girls in mildly inappropriate uniforms. Looks a bit like a comedy zeig-heil straight from Fawlty Towers at the start of their routine too. Honestly thought that was the reason for the opprobrium.
Fantastic article. Thank you.
The effect of the social media on this generation is the blurring of the border between private and public. No, your workmates are not your friends until they become such. At work you are supposed to focus on work and if you want to banter there are plenty of neutral subjects: traffic jams, the weather,etc. Never expose your hobbies, your vision of the world, your comedic genius. Apply this rule and you’ll be ok 99% of the time. If you have fallen victim to the 1% bucket it is probably not your fault so no need to apologize.
I believe a wise person once said: “Judge not that ye be not judged.” Let’s all try keep that in mind.
Isn’t one participating in this comment section actually taking part in social media?
“Another great example of this kind of thinking is the bad-faith interpretation of “where are you from”? This is a particular favourite of “anti-racist” activists. “
If anyone expresses offence about being asked where they’re from, you should immediately ask them where they’re from.
This article summarizes the snowflake issue perfectly. Please continuing writing such well done works!
I’m going to make it my business to laugh loudly at traditional sexist jokes.
My comment which took issue with the manner that this article is written, and not with the content, has been unceremoniously deleted. My review was not popular, but why censor disagreeable commentary?
“ escalating demands from Sonmez (who not only supported Weigel’s suspension “
When did Sonmez support Weigel’s suspension?
The colleague who retweet of the off-colour joke doesn’t deserve any sympathy. He was a naive fool for engaging in social media and mentoring women. Two major errors of judgement. Any man with sense knows to never get involved in either.
The truth cuts deep as always.
The red pill will set you free.