Confessions of a Social-Justice Meme Maker

When the pandemic struck in March 2020, I was working out of a Los Angeles apartment alongside my two cats, illustrating children’s books for a living. Much of my life played out online, where I carefully counted the number of “likes” my social-media posts would get, imagining this to be a reliable indicator of my ideas’ worth. As an artist, a growing social-media following also helped me find new professional opportunities, as well as customers for products I sold on Etsy.

During lockdowns, my reliance on social media became more pronounced, with Instagram as my platform of choice. I began to think of myself as an “influencer.” That word now has negative (or at least mixed) connotations. But for those who are introverted or neurodivergent, and who have difficulty navigating real-life social settings, the prospect of making an impact through arms-length electronic methods held considerable appeal. (I have Asperger’s syndrome, a subject I have written about publicly in the past.)

Eventually, I gravitated toward the social-justice art community. At a time when the world was experiencing a sense of collective fear over COVID-19, it was nice to imagine that my art was giving people joy and comfort. And of course, when these people were moved to share my art with others, well, that aligned nicely with my goal of attracting new followers. But I assured myself this was not the main purpose.

By the time the Black Lives Matter protests and riots began in mid-2020, I was fully immersed in this subculture. And the cute, non-threatening social-justice-themed images that I’d been producing gave way to a harder activist message. At the time, infographics educating people about anti-racism were flooding Instagram, stripping complex social issues down to ideologically slanted but easily digestible bullet points. Text-based slideshow graphics on pastel backdrops were a particular hit. They often read like instruction manuals, feeding believers the exact phrases needed to dismiss counterarguments and “educate” their “ignorant” family members.

Knowing a popular craze when it sees one, corporate America incorporated these facile social-justice memes into national marketing campaigns. Disavowing racism had become a brand imperative, with influencers and businesses alike at risk of reputational damage if they failed to jump on the bandwagon early and hard. Along with the infographics, there was an explosion in the market for illustrative typography featuring simple slogans such as Angela Davis’s “It’s not enough to not be racist. You must be anti-racist.” Silence was violence. And so on.

Social-justice-themed Instagram images posted during 2020.

I accepted the underlying ideology of anti-racism without question. Publications such as the New York Times and Washington Post assured me that I was on the right side of history. The online community I belonged to was effectively an echo chamber, in which ideologically non-compliant facts and statistics could be explained away with the help of all those aesthetically pleasing images. If so many earnest people of all races insisted America was experiencing a racism “pandemic,” who was I, a 31-year-old white woman, to say otherwise?

In the standard California fashion, I’d been a registered Democrat from the time I turned 18, and voted accordingly in every presidential election. But that was the extent of my involvement (and interest) in mainstream politics. I’d considered myself moderate in my attitudes, having avoided the excesses of such previous left-wing bandwagons as #MeToo. Even the first three years of Donald Trump’s presidency didn’t stir the same sense of anger in me that I observed in other Democrats.

But when COVID struck, my news consumption spiked—primarily CNN and MSNBC, which placed much of the blame for the pandemic, not to mention America’s racial inequities, on Trump. I developed the sense that we were living through a crisis that required each of us to make an existential choice. On one side lay those who wanted to make the world a better place. On the other lay the bigots and anti-vaxxers. Conveniently, it was the same line that separated my country into Democrats and Republicans.

Instagram posts created by the author.

My social-media output attracted the attention of a popular progressive Instagram account then called @WeFuckingHateDonaldTrump, which began regularly “pinning” my witty comments to its own posts. The account had garnered more than 700,000 followers in just four years, with the bulk of the content consisting of memes bashing Trump and his supporters, along with other polarizing progressive clickbait.

I befriended the account’s owners, a couple from Australia, and eventually joined their team as a content creator and curator. In lieu of being paid, I was allowed to use the account to direct followers to my personal Instagram page. In the online world, this kind of access to a large audience is a valuable asset, and so the arrangement made sense to me. (My bosses, I later learned, were hoping to hit the million-follower mark so they could comfortably quit their day jobs. They also would go on to create a loosely associated lifestyle clothing brand that’s now promoted on their page.)

Because of the time differences at play, my Australian bosses needed help posting content when their target viewers—angry American progressives—were online. I shared the morning time slot with Frederick Joseph, a New York-based author and avowed anti-racist who would later become famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for reasons described below. By the time we were working together, he’d developed a substantial following largely thanks to his tweets about “white women,” “whiteness,” “white tears,” and “white supremacy.”

White supremacy built America and if given the opportunity, white supremacy will destroy it.— Frederick "Pre-order Patriarchy Blues" Joseph (@FredTJoseph) January 13, 2021

With my instructions being to increase our follower count, I dutifully studied Instagram’s “Insights” feature (accessible to “creator” accounts), to learn which posts reaped the highest engagement. I quickly learned that the key to reaching legions of viewers is to post content that evokes strong emotional responses. In a saturated market, extreme views drive out more nuanced takes.

The narrative we sold to the masses in late 2020 was that “white supremacy” was the greatest threat that America was facing, and that Republicans were the “party of white supremacy.” At the time, I believed this wholeheartedly. When a beloved cousin died from COVID, I became even more strident, making Trump a scapegoat for my anguish. And there I was, at the controls of an Instagram propaganda machine that reached hundreds of thousands of similarly pissed off people.

Once we’d tapped into an emotionally satisfying narrative about the problem that America was facing, it was easy to demonize the people standing in the way of progress. But this rhetoric came with an awkward catch: In outward appearance at least, I was arguably part of the problem we were constantly ranting about—since I am a straight white female who was “centering” myself in a social-justice struggle that (as we’ve all been told) must be led by marginalized people.

Things got more complicated in January 2021, when Joe Biden was sworn in as president. How do you sustain an account called @WeFuckingHateDonaldTrump when Trump is no longer in the White House? It had been my job to keep people enraged and mobilized so that we, Team Blue, could enact social change by getting rid of the bad guy. And that battle had been won.

However, the owners didn’t seem to have any new business plan that didn’t involve the output of more outrage porn. And it was at about this time that I wondered why I was trying so hard to keep ramping up the vitriol. I also began wondering how my output was affecting the lives of those who viewed it. I stopped reducing people to numbers on an “Insights” page, and started trying to think of them as individuals.

Without Trump to kick around, progressives were increasingly turning on one another. Left-wing activists dedicated more and more of their time to scouring the online social-justice community, looking for opportunities to take offense. The melodramas that ensued attracted a lot of attention, allowing (victorious) combatants to level up their bona fides and follower counts.

My turn came when an activist influencer named Keiajah “KJ” Brooks called me out in the comment section of a post, after I’d made a dig at controversial right-wing pundit Candace Owens, who happens to be black. According to KJ, my white skin disqualified me from such commentary. Fred Joseph, my aforementioned coworker, joined in the pile-on.

The author's comment about Candace Owens (top left) pinned to a post on her employer’s Instagram account; and comments that followed from Keiajah “KJ” Brooks and Fred Joseph.

The next day, Joseph doubled down, posting a video explaining why it was racist for white people to criticize black people for any reason. When I brought this up to our bosses, they said that they’d let a black person decide what is racist. It seemed strange to me that one would surrender his or her critical faculties for the sake of doctrinal purity. But then it dawned on me that I was being a hypocrite, as this was exactly what I’d been doing.

I’d never really listened to a word Owens or any of the Republicans I smeared ever said—at least, not in good faith. I was just looking for an opening to mock them. I postured passionately in support of arguments and issues that I knew little about. I didn’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt if they disagreed with me. I realized I needed to take a step back and re-evaluate what I was doing with my life, and so quit working for @WeFuckingHateDonaldTrump (which now calls itself The Progressivists) in February 2021.

Since that time, my former employer has pivoted to pushing an anti-capitalist agenda, notwithstanding the fact that the owners seem to share the same professional motivation as most of the people whom the site criticizes—i.e., making money. Joseph, meanwhile, is now best known as the guy who got a woman fired from her job at a community-events software platform after she’d made agitated comments to him at a local dog park—after which, Joseph himself was called out for his own call-out by none other than 1619 Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, an alpha player within the social-justice milieu.

In the aftermath, I was left with 32,000 personal Instagram followers. It wasn’t a bad tally, but almost all of these people were militant leftists whose beliefs I no longer shared. And there was simply no way I could keep these followers happy while staying true to my beliefs. (Having Asperger’s makes it difficult to be inauthentic.) So I watched the audience I’d worked to build drop by the hundreds every time I’d post such controversial statements as “We shouldn’t cancel each other,” “Republicans are not all racists,” and “there are only two sexes.” As a result, I now get messages calling me a white supremacist and a Nazi, along with violent threats. All of this only serves to confirm my suspicions about the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of online social-justice culture.

I now look at the world around me, America in particular, in a new way. The United States of 2022 is a far less racist and intolerant place than it once was. Yet the denunciations of it that one hears from progressives have become steadily more apocalyptic. Activists need a struggle to overcome, a dragon to slay, even if it must be invented. And when there are no dragons to fight, they fight each other. This isn’t a recipe for societal improvement, much less for personal happiness.

I started fresh, with a new Instagram account called the Politically Homeless Shelter (@PHShelter), for those who don’t feel at home in either political camp; and have a new Etsy store that caters to people with “problematic” views (which, naturally, has already been disabled twice for promoting “hate speech”). On Instagram, I’ve experienced shadowbanning, had posts removed for arbitrary reasons, and had my account temporarily disabled. It’s been discouraging, but I continue to amplify information that I regard as important, in my small way. And yes, I still make a point of promoting my brand—as I’m unabashedly doing here. But hey, a woman’s got to eat.

An assembly of critical messages received by the author.

Seeing how the Democrats rushed to embed dogmatic formulations of social justice into their platform, I can no longer in good conscience align myself with their party. But neither do I align myself with Republicans, who, in many states, are now rolling back abortion rights (though even on this issue, I am not nearly so dogmatic as I once was). I’m now registered as an Independent, and consider my vote up for grabs.

My advice to others is this: Be wary of simple explanations, black-and-white thinking, and any ideology that presents the world as locked in a battle between good and evil. Take it from someone who once channeled this kind of simplistic thinking into popular memes for a living: Everything worth knowing is much more complex than any slogan can possibly convey.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Nut picking aside, there was an essential valuable truth to those memes when you consider the imminent fall of Roe & rollback of reproductive rights that will not only have a substantial impact on young women but particularly poor women of colour. If there was ever an issue to highlight the necessity of diversity it’s this one. Displaced trust in non representative leadership has not only compromised democracy but basic civil rights whereby half the population in the worlds cradle of modernity may no longer possess equal citizenship.

Slogans may not covey the totality of depth they represent but are necessary vehicles in raising awareness that bring about changes in consciousness. And ultimately the bat signal of: Diversity Diversity Diversity is a crucial one in achieving true democracy.

1 Like

El, this sounds like apologism for “simple explanations, black and white thinking, and any ideology that presents the world as locked into a battle between good and evil”, justified because since the world is locked into a battle of good and evil, encouraging simplistic thinking is an essential tool for reinforcing that mindset. I think you may have missed the point, because your argument this time appears to be reinforcing the author’s message about the dangers of polarized dogmatic thinking.

A point I want to make clearly: polarized dogmatic binary thinking can ALWAYS be rationalized by evoking some great moral evil that it’s nominally going the help defeat, indeed that’s it’s most common justification - on all sides of all issues throughout history. But bad thinking doesn’t become good thinking just because somebody claims it’s justified by some moral narrative.

It the equivalent logic was used by the anti-abortion side, except evoking what they believe is the moral horror of mass murder of innocent unborn humans, you’d see the logical flaws immediately - you’d see why evoking a moral horror does not justify turning off critical thinking.

(Before anybody goes off on me because they think I must be anti-abortion, let me be clear that I do and have supported legal abortion for many decades; I’m just using that as an example because generally it’s easier to see the flaws in an argumentation technique - like encouraging simplistic binary thinking - when the other side uses it, than when our own side does the same thing. If I were talking to somebody on the other side, I’d use pro-choice memes to illustrate the pitfalls so they might more easily see it)


Wow, Is that how you read all advocacy? An accusation of evil V good? Blame? Guilt V Innocence? Look, I appreciate that some of the commentary in recent years has had an accusatory simplistic counter productive vibe but I don’t think it’s fair to paint it all with that broad brush. And I sincerely think you maybe carrying water (not intentionally) for those who stand to benefit from silence. I read advocacy more as enthusiastic lobbying to citizens that: ‘here’s a problem & here’s a solution’ but of course framing matters.

And here’s the thing, messaging can go either way depending on the delivery. The ‘build that wall’ concept wasn’t a detrimental message in of itself but its framing was. It’s not what you say but the way you say it. Not sure if you’re Australian but we had a similar campaign in Australia a few years prior to that called ‘stop the boats’ which didn’t have anywhere near the blowback or polarisation because supporting commentary wasn’t generally inflammatory especially by leaders. And given Australia is a substantially more multi ethnic nation there certainly was a huge risk for it but in fact there was a consensus in favour of the concept.

Sure, the US has serious racial conflicts & resulting polarisation but it’s not the slogans that made it so but a combination of certain divisive commentary, misinformation, illegitimate/legitimate grievances & inaction to name a few. The simplistic explanation is to blame the slogan/concept & not consider all the accompanying factors. And by singling out only this kind of advocacy you seem to be giving a free pass to the just as if not more powerful news media kind.

As far a diversity goes, I don’t see that as bad guys v good guys but a necessary evolution as a result of social change. You may believe diversity to be simplistic solution that invites division but the facts are the present monotone leadership at all levels of government & on both sides of the political spectrum are directly responsible for the present undemocratic predicament which is hardly an appeal to just some moral narrative. Just about any grievance can be understood as encouraging polarized thinking by this logic so unless your’e into progress paralysis sometimes uncomfortable confrontation is necessary as historically evident.

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will . Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.

-Frederick Douglas

I’d be interested to hear what approach you would suggest but sincerely hope you don’t whimp out with ‘just vote’ because we all know that for women in certain states without political representation they don’t stand a chance as all women won’t if a certain party gets enough power.

1 Like

It has always seemed strange to me how those who are pro-abortion can show deep empathy for the young women involved but have no empathy whatsoever for the unborn baby. It is not that I don’t empathize with the women involved (I do) but their suffering (physical and mental) is not equivalent to the death of a human being. Every life is a world. Every time a baby is killed, a world is destroyed. How are you able to so easily overlook that?

Then I realized that modern progressive ideology actually does not believe in the inherent value of human life (as you yourself once held up in a post), it only believes in the inherent value of human life as long as that life is absent of suffering. In fact, even animal life (absent of suffering) has become more valuable that human life per se (how else can we explain that it is now illegal to cook a live lobster in boiling water but legal -and even encouraged! to abort unborn human babies?).

Part of the explanation is that our empathy is highly skewed by immediacy. We are much less concerned about millions of innocent African children slowly dying of hunger than we are about (a certainly not completely innocent) George Floyd being suffocated by a policeman. Because this was much more immediate, was on the news a hundred times a day, and provoked our empathy much more readily. In the same way, the young pregnant woman worrying about her future moves us in a way that the baby being killed in the womb does not (since we cannot see or hear the baby suffer). My feeling is that we should strive to temper raw empathy with reason and logic in order to really reach a more just and a more equal world.

An unborn baby is a human being (this can be proven by genetics) and it is alive (this is self-evident). Do you really think slogans will change the consciousness of those of us who clearly understand these two basic facts and therefore believe that abortion is wrong?

Also, not sure what DiversityDiversityDiversity has to do with abortion…


You are from Australia, right? So, what is your ability to understand the actual political facts on the ground in the USA? Probably nil.

1 Like

Interesting piece. Indeed, the value of the term “anti-racist” is completely nil at this time. When everything is “racist”, nothing is “racist”.

I reject any and all attempts to use the term.


Unborn fetuses are sometimes alive, othertimes not. Because the definition of life is “living outside of mom”. You, like many inflexible fanatics, confuse “facts” with “my opinion”. Almost every statement you made is one of opinion, not fact.

And your simplistic ranting ignores historical issues. In point of fact, there is no consensus thru history about when “life begins”. Some say at conception. Some say at quickening. In the medieval times, it was several days after birth. There is no “true” point.

1 Like

More power to you, sister.

I am currently working on a series of Obamawasafool products that I hope to have for sale in the near future. My company name is, Obamawasa…?
Our first offerings are:

  • Obamawasafuckface: Nutcracker set (shot-glasses sold separately)
  • Obamawasaliar: Mittens (and matching hand-warmer)
  • Obamawasapileofshit: Wheelbarrow (part of our home-gardening line-up)

And of course, there’s my personal favorite…

  • IgottagetmesomeObamasauce: A picante blend of various spices that makes a great topping for corn chips or, can be added to sour cream to make a pretty zesty dip.

Our Obamamama baby formula is currently unavailable except in the Philippines.

Obamawasanogoodmotherfucker (trademark pending)


1 Like

What were the motivations of your sponsors? Were they mainly political, with hope to make some money along the way…or the other way round?..or purely financial?

1 Like

Here’s what Stalin’s master propagandist, Willi Munzenberg, told Arthur Koestler, back when Koestler was still a Communist:

“Don’t argue with them, Make them stink in the nose of the world. Make people curse and abominate them. Make them shudder with horror. That, Arturo, is propaganda!”

A very high % of political communications there days seems to follow that model…especially on the Left, but not exclusively so.

While there is some political value in ‘stirring up the base’ for reasons of turnout and contributions…(and getting opponents to shut up)…still, elections are won by those who are persuadable, and there seems to be remarkably little focus on the whole area of political persuasion.


Uh, what?? So stating that a fetus is alive is now an opinion? Okaaayyy then. I thought people on this site based their arguments on science…

This is true when referring to the soul. But since progressive ideology does not allow for a soul, I argue only from the point of view of biology. And no one here will seriously argue that a fetus is not biologically alive, will they? Another question is whether that life has innate value or not. That is indeed an opinion…


That’s because most women don’t equate a zygote/blastocyst/embryo or early fetus as a ‘baby’. Ask yourself why the same women who would literally die for their born children are substantially less concerned regarding early terminations. I suspect the answer is related to instinct. Hostile or inopportune environments or unavailability of resources aren’t conducive to offspring flourishing in the animal kingdom & they are therefore wired to avoid procreation then. Miscarriage functions much in the same way & that’s why it doesn’t have the same impact as a still birth.

But their suffering is immediate & yet pro lifers are more concerned with those that aren’t. Imagine the lives saved if prolifers dedicated their financial & political power there? Inconsistency much?

As far as Floyd was concerned he was a person not a potential one.

But you are talking about a potential life & have drawn an arbitrary line of value at fertilization for that potentiality to begin. I appreciate that’s a milestone of biological importance but it’s only one of them & if you are talking strictly about potential life lost that could also reasonably be at ovulation. Every time a fertile female ovulates & circumvents fetilization via contraception it’s a loss of a unique potential person. Of course Catholics are a little more consistent in this area albeit impractical. And here’s the thing, real life practicalities matter. IVF? Stem cell research? IUD’s are all a form of termination of human life but are of practical necessity. How far do you want to take this thing? Infant mortality in the US is the lowest of all developed nations why not focus on that?

No. That would be like attempting to convert believers/unbelievers. A waste of time & hardly worth the effort numbers wise. The problem has never been ‘persuading’ people to be pro choice because the numbers already overwhelmingly support that. The problem has been broken democracy because of lack of representation hence my call to diversity….

How very lived experience of you G……

Commenting on the politics of other countries always makes the commenter look like a dummy. Those in other countries do not understand the nuances. That’s a problem you have with your comments on USA politics.


Go ahead, make my day & enlighten us all on your take then instead of saying nothing…

If you want to call the fetus a baby, it needs to live independently, or be capable of that. Until about M 7, it cannot. And for those who are heroically saved at 5-6 M, there is a lifetime of problems usually. These are chronically ill persons. Many are not all that happy to be saved, in point of fact.

1 Like

Comments like this are common on this site. Specifically to whom do you address this comment?