We all know the pattern by now. Something minor happens. One of the affected parties doesn’t want people talking about it. So they go on a crusade against anyone tha makes a small mention about the thing which ends up making the thing super famous.
It is called the Streisand effect after Barbara Streisand who famously went through such a thing. But for all the fame the effect has, how many people actually still remember what it was originally about, without looking it up?
I certainly don’t. I’m pretty sure I looked it up once but apparently it wasn’t interesting enough to remember. This just proves once again that ignoring the thing is much more effective than trying to silence talk about the thing.
Kind of similar to the Watergate scandal and all subsequent -gates. I think it’s about some spy drama revealing the president’s crimes at the Watergate Hotel that led to Richard Nixon resigning but that’s about it. And that’s probably wrong.
Now that I think about it (I should really get out of this shower) there are probably tons of idioms that are even further removed from their origin. I bet some are so far removed that we don’t even register them as being idioms. They’re just words.
Victim blaming and gaslighting
??? How am I blaming her? Am I misunderstanding you?
The Streisand effect itself is victim blaming
I see what you mean. In my experience of the internet it’s called “The Streisand Effect” only when the person complaining about something (and therefore giving an issue attention that it otherwise wouldn’t have received) is generally considered to be “in the wrong” on the issue. I can’t think of a case where someone received blowback for speaking up about an issue (professional repercussions, exclusion from social circles, “cancelling” by various parties, w/e) but was considered to be in the right by the the people calling it “The Streisand Effect”. It feels like there’s a necessary component of “you complained about something you shouldn’t have and were justly punished for it” schadenfreude attached to the term that differentiates it: if you don’t have that you’re just bravely and correctly shining a light on an injustice and it’s not called “The Streisand Effect”, it’s just raising awareness or something.
I think you’re being downvoted because the victim of the alleged injustice complaining about that injustice and then deserving the backlash is baked into the term, and calling it “victim blaming” feels off, but it technically is, it’s just that calling something “The Streisand Effect” implies that the “victim” in the situation deserved what they got because they complained about something trivial, or an effect of privilege, or some other thing that, in the eyes of the public, makes them unworthy of sympathy. But I think carrying that implication of guilt means that it is, technically, victim blaming, and the person using the term “The Streisand Effect” implicitly agrees that the victim deserves blame for their actions. And knowing the internet, I doubt this assessment is correct 100% of the time.
I’m curious to see if other people agree with this assessment. I haven’t done any research on whether my experience of the term is shared by other people, so this may not be a strong theory. Just a thought that spawned off your comment. But it is an interesting perspective.
There was no “victim” originally. She turned herself into one by pointing out that it was her house. Before that nobody knew.