Funny how that works… It’s been my experienced that whenever POC express their views in strong, unapologetic terms in interracial discussions where disagreements occur, it’s the POC and anyone who agree with them who are labeled the trouble-makers (there’s a long history of that) and people who “hijack” threads. Nevermind the times when clearly racist Whites say all manner of things to attack the POC no matter what the conversation is about: it’s always the POC who is out of place and out of order.
That aside, I’ve never understood this concept no matter where it has been raised. I’ll never be able to understand how anyone can “hijack” a conversation. It all sounds like people who aren’t willing to accept responsibility either for their own actions for willingly participating in the “hijack” or for what is being explored in the “hijack.”
Speaking of what is being explored… Let’s see if I have this right. The term “hi(gh)jack” refers to taking something (over) by force and diverting its path. Another definition indicates that hijacking is arbitrary which, in terms of on-line discussions, suggest that the hijacker is attempting to use something off-topic to divert people’s attention away from the topic.
But what happens when someone is accused of hijacking a thread and their comments are focused on the topic — the underlying assumptions used to formulate the thesis in the topic? What do you call the allegations when its not hijacking, in any meaningful sense of the word, that the person is complaining about?
Also, what gives someone the power to hijack a thread? Is it the “force” of their arguments? What is it?
In these interracial discussions we have, why is it that it’s always the POC who are labeled as those hijacking threads?