Victimhood
For the first time ever I told someone to block me. The more I get to know people in Google+ the more I'm ever more grateful for the *I* in *INTP*.
I understand over the years, especially during this last election cycle and with the advent of the Tea Party and 8 years of Bush era policies, somehow somewhere along the way I've been labeled liberal.
As much as I've rebelled against that label, I am still saddled with it for my support of social issues, equal rights, immigration reform, social justice, civil rights, and many many more causes. However, that doesn't mean the Right isn't correct once in a while.
I saw a fairly large backlash when I defended (then-candidate) Romney for misspeaking at a public event. He said "apples" when he meant to say "oranges" and while every liberal on the internet jumped on him for being an idiot I preached a more understanding viewpoint: the man is campaigning. He is probably getting between 4 and 6 hours of sleep a night; he probably has 4, 5, 6 or more 'advisers' constantly pushing facts and figures into his head, along with names, dates, and other localized facts; and being human he probably said the wrong thing.
You know what? I say the wrong thing once in a while. So does my roommate. So does the guy I work for (although, to be fair he does it much more than regular people) and so do you. Just the other day I referred to the 90s as 10 years ago. Someone laughed and pointed out my math was wrong. I laughed after realizing my math and my age were wrong and then moved on. It happens to the best of us.
More recently, with the shootings and the violent reaction to ban all guns at the federal, state and local levels also got the liberals in a backlash against me. I abhor the NRA and the idiocracy they usually sprout, but you know what, sometimes they're right, too. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Cars don't speed; people speed. Drugs don't do themselves; people do drugs. To declare an inanimate object being able to have will or being able to do anything is simply anthropomorphizing.
The so-called "gun problem" in this country isn't a gun problem but rather a mental health care problem. You know, looking at the underlying cause instead of the easy target.
But instead, the liberal people who are connected to me jumped on me like a tiger hunting a pig, claws ready to rend and tear; teeth locked and loaded with accusations of sympathizing with child killers.
Most recently, today in fact, I watched a conversation unfold on social media. Four persons were involved:
1- Myself (my thread, my rules)
2- Person A, liberal female
3- Person B, liberal leaning male
4- Person C, moderate or Reagan Republican (side note: is it sad that Reagan Republicans are considered moderate now?)
The conversation started with my link to an article about the death rates of women across the USA rising, especially in certain areas such as the south, the midwest and the PNW.
For the most part, Person A and Person B were talking back and forth until Persona C jumps in and says something along the lines of "it couldn't be because of all the genetic foods, medications, lack of exercises unnecessary vaccines, could it?"
Person A jumps back with her own pithy comment about Gardasil.
Person C comes back and says something like, "You said it, not me, Ass Munch."
Person B comes back and says to Person A, "Who are you talking to? I must have this person blocked."
Person A responds to Person B with, "It's just Person C, he's a douchebag."
I jump back in and say something like, "Person C and I don't always agree, but he's not a douchebag."
Person A then turns on me, "But it's okay for him to call me 'ass munch'? Nice double standard."
I then reply to Person A with, what I thought, was a very agreeable response, "He called you an ass munch. You're a big girl, you can handle that yourself. However, you told Person B Person C is a 'douchebag'. There's a difference."
And then it got worse with Person A now claiming I was attacking her and not using the same standard on both parties. It's simple, I tell her, they're two different situations and therefore the same standard does not apply.
In the first example, he calls you a pejorative name.
In the second example, you tell someone who can't even 'see' Person C, Person C is an derogatory term.
Person A then whines and says she's just going to block Person C because she doesn't like him. That's her prerogative. I don't agree with that particular policy because it creates a society of people living in ideological bubbles just like people who only watch Fox News or people who only hear from the proverbial 'yes men' -- but that's my opinion.
Since this line of discussion is in my thread and I have a policy of not locking posts or moderating the discussion (since I believe everyone is allowed to share their opinions unless they're overtly trolling) there was nothing either party could do other than leave the discussion. I've been locked out or had my comments edited from plenty of discussions because they didn't support or reinforce the original poster's predetermined opinion. It's the nature of discussion to have people disagree with you and it's the nature of personal growth to be able to address those disagreements in a respectful manner. But again, that's another of my opinions.
Person A goes on to claim I'm not treating her fairly. I finally explained it again and told her she's more than welcome to block me too.
If Google+ has shown me anything about the human condition it's that most people are looking for an excuse to play the victim. He disagrees with me, he must be a misogynist; he disagrees with me, he must be a child molester (yes, that actually happened); he disagrees with me, he must be a liberal. Now that I think about it, only one person's pulled the race card on me and that person was white: you disagree with me, you must be a racist. Granted, the discussion was about Tea Party racism (can you guess she's a liberal) and I said it's not racist, instead it's endorsing a negative stereotype. I even showed academic sources stating the difference between stereotypes and racism, but she didn't care instead telling me that since my sources didn't agree with her, my sources were invalid.
But that's beside the point.
The point is people are too thin skinned and for the most part I'm seeing those people generally lean political and socially liberal. Why is that? A study proved that people who declare themselves conservative or right are generally more fearful people, but why do liberal leaning people need to lash out and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them? What happened to the art of conversation without having to resort to moderating opinions, deleting disagreeing posts or without name-calling?
Why do some people always have to play the victim?
I understand over the years, especially during this last election cycle and with the advent of the Tea Party and 8 years of Bush era policies, somehow somewhere along the way I've been labeled liberal.
As much as I've rebelled against that label, I am still saddled with it for my support of social issues, equal rights, immigration reform, social justice, civil rights, and many many more causes. However, that doesn't mean the Right isn't correct once in a while.
I saw a fairly large backlash when I defended (then-candidate) Romney for misspeaking at a public event. He said "apples" when he meant to say "oranges" and while every liberal on the internet jumped on him for being an idiot I preached a more understanding viewpoint: the man is campaigning. He is probably getting between 4 and 6 hours of sleep a night; he probably has 4, 5, 6 or more 'advisers' constantly pushing facts and figures into his head, along with names, dates, and other localized facts; and being human he probably said the wrong thing.
You know what? I say the wrong thing once in a while. So does my roommate. So does the guy I work for (although, to be fair he does it much more than regular people) and so do you. Just the other day I referred to the 90s as 10 years ago. Someone laughed and pointed out my math was wrong. I laughed after realizing my math and my age were wrong and then moved on. It happens to the best of us.
More recently, with the shootings and the violent reaction to ban all guns at the federal, state and local levels also got the liberals in a backlash against me. I abhor the NRA and the idiocracy they usually sprout, but you know what, sometimes they're right, too. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Cars don't speed; people speed. Drugs don't do themselves; people do drugs. To declare an inanimate object being able to have will or being able to do anything is simply anthropomorphizing.
The so-called "gun problem" in this country isn't a gun problem but rather a mental health care problem. You know, looking at the underlying cause instead of the easy target.
But instead, the liberal people who are connected to me jumped on me like a tiger hunting a pig, claws ready to rend and tear; teeth locked and loaded with accusations of sympathizing with child killers.
Most recently, today in fact, I watched a conversation unfold on social media. Four persons were involved:
1- Myself (my thread, my rules)
2- Person A, liberal female
3- Person B, liberal leaning male
4- Person C, moderate or Reagan Republican (side note: is it sad that Reagan Republicans are considered moderate now?)
The conversation started with my link to an article about the death rates of women across the USA rising, especially in certain areas such as the south, the midwest and the PNW.
For the most part, Person A and Person B were talking back and forth until Persona C jumps in and says something along the lines of "it couldn't be because of all the genetic foods, medications, lack of exercises unnecessary vaccines, could it?"
Person A jumps back with her own pithy comment about Gardasil.
Person C comes back and says something like, "You said it, not me, Ass Munch."
Person B comes back and says to Person A, "Who are you talking to? I must have this person blocked."
Person A responds to Person B with, "It's just Person C, he's a douchebag."
I jump back in and say something like, "Person C and I don't always agree, but he's not a douchebag."
Person A then turns on me, "But it's okay for him to call me 'ass munch'? Nice double standard."
I then reply to Person A with, what I thought, was a very agreeable response, "He called you an ass munch. You're a big girl, you can handle that yourself. However, you told Person B Person C is a 'douchebag'. There's a difference."
And then it got worse with Person A now claiming I was attacking her and not using the same standard on both parties. It's simple, I tell her, they're two different situations and therefore the same standard does not apply.
In the first example, he calls you a pejorative name.
In the second example, you tell someone who can't even 'see' Person C, Person C is an derogatory term.
Person A then whines and says she's just going to block Person C because she doesn't like him. That's her prerogative. I don't agree with that particular policy because it creates a society of people living in ideological bubbles just like people who only watch Fox News or people who only hear from the proverbial 'yes men' -- but that's my opinion.
Since this line of discussion is in my thread and I have a policy of not locking posts or moderating the discussion (since I believe everyone is allowed to share their opinions unless they're overtly trolling) there was nothing either party could do other than leave the discussion. I've been locked out or had my comments edited from plenty of discussions because they didn't support or reinforce the original poster's predetermined opinion. It's the nature of discussion to have people disagree with you and it's the nature of personal growth to be able to address those disagreements in a respectful manner. But again, that's another of my opinions.
Person A goes on to claim I'm not treating her fairly. I finally explained it again and told her she's more than welcome to block me too.
If Google+ has shown me anything about the human condition it's that most people are looking for an excuse to play the victim. He disagrees with me, he must be a misogynist; he disagrees with me, he must be a child molester (yes, that actually happened); he disagrees with me, he must be a liberal. Now that I think about it, only one person's pulled the race card on me and that person was white: you disagree with me, you must be a racist. Granted, the discussion was about Tea Party racism (can you guess she's a liberal) and I said it's not racist, instead it's endorsing a negative stereotype. I even showed academic sources stating the difference between stereotypes and racism, but she didn't care instead telling me that since my sources didn't agree with her, my sources were invalid.
But that's beside the point.
The point is people are too thin skinned and for the most part I'm seeing those people generally lean political and socially liberal. Why is that? A study proved that people who declare themselves conservative or right are generally more fearful people, but why do liberal leaning people need to lash out and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them? What happened to the art of conversation without having to resort to moderating opinions, deleting disagreeing posts or without name-calling?
Why do some people always have to play the victim?
Comments