There’s nothing wrong with criticism or calling out bad behavior. However, shouting “ACAB” in a thread about police violence, making jokes about beheading rich people, or throwing “muskrat” comments in discussions about Elon Musk, just to name a few examples, makes you an asshole and part of the reason why social media is so incredibly toxic.
If you’re doing that while also explaining why you feel that way, then it’s still not the best approach, but at least you’re contributing to the conversation instead of just making noise. Throwing out insults without adding substance doesn’t challenge anyone or encourage meaningful discussion; it just perpetuates the toxic environment that so many of us complain about.
I have some perspective on this that’s a bit hard to share, but I’ll try to do so briefly. My partner had a very traumatic upbringing and has spent several years processing all of that trauma in therapy. She has occasionally said things while in an activated state that she later came to deeply regret. When she has said these hurtful things, I’ve been able to see an injured and frightened 18, 15, 12, 10, 7, or 5 year old kid lashing out as the only defense to an existential threat. There was no existential threat in our time or place, but the trapped knot of trauma that was smashed into her brain by her circumstances saw it as one and tried to survive. With that understanding, it became hard to feel anything but sadness and compassion on the very rare occasion when her anger turned to me.
This has had a profound impact on how I view angry discourse out in the world. Most people haven’t been through the shit my partner has, but most people have absolutely been through something terrible that has wounded them. Those wounds often turn into trauma, and that trauma can sometimes explode out into the world.
I don’t think that having trauma means that adults aren’t responsible for their actions. My philosophy is that every person has a duty to take care of themselves and to not harm others, in that order. Harming someone else is not acceptable to me unless it must be done to protect your present self. I just no longer feel like I am able to assign blame or worthiness to these types of comments and the people making them. When I see someone saying something like “ACAB” and expressing really painful trauma, I think of my partner and all the pain she’s gone through and all the work she’s done to get to the bright place she’s at today.
All of this is to say that I just can’t agree with calling them assholes. I think that there are times when they could be misguided and hurtful and even harmful, but that makes me sad rather than angry. The comments that make me angry are the ones made in bad faith, but thankfully the block and report buttons are easy to reach.
I’m curious about the incident you mentioned. Would you be able to link it to me? I might like to comment over there if possible.
EDIT: I was not, in fact, brief.
EDIT: Found it: https://kbin.earth/m/[email protected]/t/353424/-/comment/2994009
I’m shit at the fediverse so sorry for my dumb link. I think there’s a better way to link stuff, but I don’t know what or how even.
I don’t believe in free will nor self, so assigning blame doesn’t really fit my worldview anyway. Like I said in the title; I don’t think the cause justifies the behaviour. It may explain a part of it, but what ever the reason, they can still be acting like an asshole.
If I don’t like a person, I don’t blame them for it. I equally helplessly could not not-like them because of the way they act.
The bottom thread of this post.
For future reference, here is a direct link to the comment on my instance, and here is the contents of the comment:
I’m purposefully not including their username here in case they want to delete their comments at a later date.
That’s a pretty rough thread to read. It makes me feel pretty damn bummed out. The cop (who I will refer to as “they”, “them”, and “the commenter” from now on) clearly believes in their position, and like, I get it. I think everybody would be happy to live in a world where following the belief that “you have nothing to hide” truly resulted in universally positive outcomes. They mention that cops in some countries act like criminals, which is a true (if perhaps incomplete) statement. I think there may be some defensiveness in their comment, but that’s pretty natural when commenting on an article that’s written on the basis that everyone doing their job is bad and should not be trusted. They probably have a hard job, and I’m guessing that part of the way they (and many cops) get through the day is to view their role as a protector of the innocent. That’s not a groundbreaking statement or anything, but I figured I should include it. I’ll also say that they did a pretty good job of avoiding aggressive language. It’s natural to want to fight when dearly held beliefs are attacked, and they did a good job of avoiding that.
However, I can also understand how that comment makes some people very, very angry. For example, it makes me feel frustrated because I feel like it is missing important context (e.g. roughly where they’re from and how the police and community interact there), and I feel that it is presenting an argument that is problematic and evidently untrue in some contexts. I also feel like it’s a potentially reckless comment. When I read that comment, I feel I’m being told that I may be less safe if I try to maintain my right to privacy. I personally disagree with that idea, and I’m guessing that the people who made very aggressive responses feel much more strongly about that than I do. I won’t claim to understand all the reasons why people are so angry at the police, so all I can do is share my reasons for feeling upset when reading that comment.
I dunno. I’m torn about that whole thread. I think the commenter was arguing in good faith and was communicating somewhat effectively, but I also don’t think they considered how hurt and angry people are. It’s not their job to avoid provoking trauma responses and angering random people on the internet. I have had times where I had to say something that I knew would really upset and activate my partner. However, I have found that I have better outcomes when I take some time to empathize before saying something that I know will potentially activate someone. I can hear them out, show empathy (or compassion if I have the resources to express it and am comfortable giving it), help them come back to the here-and-now, and then continue the discussion. That wasn’t done, and the folks who have a hard time regulating their emotions made aggressive comments.
I don’t feel like they were expressing vulnerable feelings, so I’m hoping that they had an emotional shield up and didn’t experience harm. I’m sure it was hurtful, but I hope it wasn’t harmful. I hope that the people who clearly feel such deep rage are eventually able to find peace and a safe place to recover from whatever shit they went through, assuming they have unprocessed shit to deal with. I obviously hope that we’ll someday look back at police brutality some day and be horrified that we ever lived like that, but that’s a nothingburger of a statement in this context. The commenter has expressed their desire to move on from the topic so I won’t leave a comment over there, but I figured I’d share my thoughts here. There’s not really a point to what I’m saying beyond that.
The timbre and content of our conversation here combined with something I read from your account has led me to perseverate on this conversation, so I’m going to make a comment that’s definitely off-topic to satisfy my brain.
When I received the first response in this thread, I became curious about who I was conversing with. I looked at your profile and saw this in the account bio (or whatever it’s called here):
And in this most recent comment in the thread:
I’m assuming that you are a determinist. I’m also a determinist! I believe that our actions and identity are ultimately the product of the way our brains interact with the environment around them. I believe that free will is an illusion many people see because the way our brain interacts with its environment is incredibly complicated and is almost impossible to quantify. I think we agree to some degree on this, although I could be totally wrong. I just wanted to see if I could establish a shared (if limited) understanding of how the brain do its thang based on the quote I’ve taken from this thread.
I wanted to write about emotions. I used to believe that emotions were not helpful when discussing fractious issues and when doing things like, say, software development. I’ve come to believe that I felt this way because I was not taught how to understand or process emotions. Because I didn’t understand them, I was frustrated when they’d come to lead a conversation. I thought that if people could just be purely rational beings, we’d all be able to talk about hard things and come up with mutually beneficial solutions to our problems.
That sounds pretty naive because it is. I absolutely acknowledge that there are more nuanced arguments for why emotions should be kept out of debates, but I don’t properly understand those arguments so I can’t represent them here. Normally this would be enough for me to not make this comment, but I think I have a way to make my point that doesn’t really depend on whether or not emotions should be involved in discussions.
Basically, I feel that it is impossible for two people to discuss something without that discussion involving emotions. I believe this is the case for the same reasons I believe in a deterministic universe (which is a ridiculous sentence lol, I sound so pompous right now). I think that a person’s capability to express rational thought is either the result of emotions, or is inextricably linked to emotions. The human brain is a glorious fucking mess. The brain interacts with itself in ways that are just as dynamic and complicated as how the outside environment affects the brain. There’s been a lot of research done to try and separate out what’s responsible for cognition and emotion. Those efforts have failed, and there’s now a lot of literature out there showing how you can’t have one without the other. That’s all really nice and cerebral and such, but I’m not qualified to talk about any of that and don’t want to barf out another debate on the internet on “how does an brain work.” There are enough of those. All I can do is talk about personal experience.
Like, emotions can be really useful in guiding rational thought. I’m a software developer by trade, and I’ve learned over the years that I architect, write, test, and debug software based on how I feel on a moment-to-moment basis. When I’m trying to filter a list, I just kinda let my fingers move and pound something out. I read it, and if I feel bad (e.g. anxious), I let my fingers delete some stuff and add more stuff, and I keep doing that until I’m happy. Sometimes I’ll stop and think more consciously and “rationally” about what I’m doing, but like, I only do so when I’ve hit a point of feeling consistently unhappy for 3-5 minutes. My emotions and instincts have done most of the work in filtering out the contents of a list or coming up with a state machine or designing a class hierarchy or whatever, which is all pretty logical and rational shit. I work that way and my code works pretty well and is pretty fast and people generally like to read it and work with it. The times when I’ve struggled are when I’ve lacked the necessary instinct or “feel” for what’s good and bad and have had to think purely rationally about what I’m doing.
I’ve found this to be true for debates as well. I’m far more convincing when I allow my emotions to guide my rational arguments. I’ve changed far more minds, and I’ve had my mind changed far more often when I include my emotions as an essential component of my rationality.
I’m just some random dude on the internet making a comment about something nobody asked about, so take this for what it is. I figured it’d be fun to write about, and I guess it was since I’m approaching kbin’s 5000 character limit for a single comment.