A thought about our current 'political' divide:
What's happening is a critical mass of people are done putting up with abusive bullshit anymore—taking it or excusing it
Which seems very divisive and dangerous to people who rely on abusive bullshit for either fortune or identity
What's happening is a critical mass of people are done putting up with abusive bullshit anymore—taking it or excusing it
Which seems very divisive and dangerous to people who rely on abusive bullshit for either fortune or identity
When a wife leaves her abusive husband, he thinks that's something she is doing *to* him, rather than *for* herself.
Abusive people always make themselves both the victim and the hero of their own stories.
And a critical mass of us are done hearing those stories.
Abusive people always make themselves both the victim and the hero of their own stories.
And a critical mass of us are done hearing those stories.
The abusive husband uses his own victimhood as justification:
She's refusing to see his side of things
She's not giving him a chance
She's being very unfair
How dare she
Well, then
She deserves what she gets
That's the story we keep hearing these days in different ways.
She's refusing to see his side of things
She's not giving him a chance
She's being very unfair
How dare she
Well, then
She deserves what she gets
That's the story we keep hearing these days in different ways.
As I've said before, I'm pretty much done debating with people who have shown they're operating in bad faith.
But I think I might like to ask them to defend their bad stories.
I'll explain.
But I think I might like to ask them to defend their bad stories.
I'll explain.
First, what is meant by ‘operating in bad faith?’
There are a lot of ways that people do this, but I think the underlying idea is, this is somebody who is expresses ideas not because they believe them, but to accomplish a bad intention.
Which is what abusive people do.
There are a lot of ways that people do this, but I think the underlying idea is, this is somebody who is expresses ideas not because they believe them, but to accomplish a bad intention.
Which is what abusive people do.
But how can you tell a person’s intent?
Sometimes it’s obvious. If somebody demonstrates a commitment to a totally alternate reality, a deliberately impervious ignorance of facts, or downright abusive language, yeah. It’s clear.
Bad faith. Don’t waste your time.
Sometimes it’s obvious. If somebody demonstrates a commitment to a totally alternate reality, a deliberately impervious ignorance of facts, or downright abusive language, yeah. It’s clear.
Bad faith. Don’t waste your time.
Other times someone acting in bad faith is less apparent.
They appeal to reconciliation. Peace. Forgiveness. Acceptance. Those are *good* things.
Who doesn’t want those things?
But those things are worse than useless, if the abuse that caused the divide isn’t first addressed.
They appeal to reconciliation. Peace. Forgiveness. Acceptance. Those are *good* things.
Who doesn’t want those things?
But those things are worse than useless, if the abuse that caused the divide isn’t first addressed.
It’s very important that we figure this out. If we don't, we risk becoming abusive people ourselves.
Asking a victim of abuse to reconcile with their abuser while they are still under persistent ongoing threat of abuse, is itself abuse.
Asking a victim of abuse to reconcile with their abuser while they are still under persistent ongoing threat of abuse, is itself abuse.
What an abusive person wants is this: reconciliation without reparation.
Watch for it.
Watch for it.
Reconciliation without reparation.
Continuation of the power that allowed the abuse, and the permission to continue that abuse without consequence.
And an apology, for the insult of resisting.
Continuation of the power that allowed the abuse, and the permission to continue that abuse without consequence.
And an apology, for the insult of resisting.
Reconciliation without reparation.
Watch for that, and you’ll know.
Bad faith.
Watch for that, and you’ll know.
Bad faith.
Reconciliation without reparation.
The clumsy will yell to get it. The sly will flatter your best instincts. Appeal to things they don’t usually care about. They’ll even change their behavior for a while.
The way to detect it? Use story.
The clumsy will yell to get it. The sly will flatter your best instincts. Appeal to things they don’t usually care about. They’ll even change their behavior for a while.
The way to detect it? Use story.
Ask them to tell the story where they are the hero.
Ask them for their favorite story about the brave rich country that saved their society by building a wall around itself, to keep all the dirty poor out.
Ask them for their favorite story about the brave rich country that saved their society by building a wall around itself, to keep all the dirty poor out.
Ask them for their favorite story about the country that was brave enough to torture in order to stay safe.
Ask them for their favorite story where the heroes targeted a specific religion for exclusion.
Ask them for their favorite story where the heroes targeted a specific religion for exclusion.
Ask them for their favorite story about the people who wisely separated the children of refugees from their parents, to better dissuade any other refugees from coming.
Ask them for their favorite story about a heroic military strongman.
Ask them for their favorite story about people who relied on legality to shoot children on the streets, and to put others in cages.
Ask them for their favorite hero who owned a prison.
Ask them for their favorite hero who owned a prison.
Ask them for their favorite story where the heroes made sure that only the deserving hungry got food, where only the deserving sick got care.
Tell them they can use their Bible, if they want.
Tell them they can use their Bible, if they want.
They can hide their intention behind stats, or news stories catered just to them, or they can duck and weave and mourn the loss of civility.
But if you ask for a story, what story supports those intentions?
Atlas? The best he could manage was a shrug.
But if you ask for a story, what story supports those intentions?
Atlas? The best he could manage was a shrug.
They’re bad stories about reconciliation without reparation. If you tell them as stories, they're about the villain winning through power.
We’re not listening to them anymore.
And it’s not a political difference.
We’re not listening to them anymore.
And it’s not a political difference.
Remember, when our divide is caused by abuse, as it now is, the effects of the resulting divide—the consequence—is not something that has been done TO the abuser.
It's something the abuser has done to the rest of us.
It's something the abuser has done to the rest of us.
The job of reconciliation belongs to the abuser, and the work of reconciliation is reparation.
It's not our job to reconcile the abuser to their intended targets before then.
It's our job to protect—ourselves, if we are the target, or others, if we are not.
It's not our job to reconcile the abuser to their intended targets before then.
It's our job to protect—ourselves, if we are the target, or others, if we are not.
I think these movies are exactly that. But these movies do not make the human spirit soar, and anyone who believes their heroes are admirable should be approached with caution. If it’s the best they’ve got, they don’t got much.
Also, this gets us into the interesting category of what I’d call “trap” movies.
These are movies that present a villain in such a way—whether through charisma or unapologetic expression of worldview, etc—that their villainy escapes the notice of people who agree with them.
These are movies that present a villain in such a way—whether through charisma or unapologetic expression of worldview, etc—that their villainy escapes the notice of people who agree with them.
Gordon Gecko was not the hero of Wall Street. You’ll still get people who say “greed is good.”
Colonel Nathan Jessup was not the hero of A Few Good Men.
Scarface was pathetic.
These are movies about people who missed the point, beloved by people who missed the point.
Colonel Nathan Jessup was not the hero of A Few Good Men.
Scarface was pathetic.
These are movies about people who missed the point, beloved by people who missed the point.
Quick point of clarity: In this thread I’m not talking about presuming, I’m talking about detecting.
But I don’t think debate is at all an effective tool for changing minds. Explained here:
Detecting bad intent isn't always hard. Here, for example, is a fellow who is upset that people like me presume racism just because we disagree on multiculturalism. He then follows it up with overt racism.
What to say?
What to say?
A story of a country that saved their society by mixing vastly different cultures together?
Well, the story of the United States, for example.
Or, if you prefer the Biblical, what about the story of Ruth?
For something more current, how about The Guardians of the Galaxy?
Well, the story of the United States, for example.
Or, if you prefer the Biblical, what about the story of Ruth?
For something more current, how about The Guardians of the Galaxy?
A story of "importing poor people?" In my house we call that "generosity." I hope you take it as given I can put my finger on a story or two celebrating that.
Where's the story about the heroic monoculture of wealth horders that we all admire so much? And where are they now?
Where's the story about the heroic monoculture of wealth horders that we all admire so much? And where are they now?
By the way, the idea for this thread drew from a longer essay I wrote last year. If you're interested, here it is. armoxon.com/2017/09/bubble…
