In my article, This Is the Way the N-Word Dies, I wrote about the time some guy called me a ni**er in Macedonia. I didn’t do anything to provoke him or even notice he was there, but, for some reason, he really wanted me to know he didn’t like black people. Unfortunately for him, I genuinely didn’t care. Not about his opinion, and not about the words he used to express it. This meant two things:
"Trauma," "Harm," "Abuse," "PTSD." What do these words mean now? I know what they meant to my dad's generation. (Hint: World War II.) For my dad, the emotional resilience you exhibit he expected from himself and from me, his son. You know who you are, so why should you care about the words or opinions of others who don't? This was simply "understood."
Julia does not reveal what these words mean to her. What is clear, however, is that the cultural incentives have been reversed. Resilience no longer has social currency in much of the West. Being "harmed," or "marginalized," does. So, it should not be a surprise that the words in quotes above now encompass "trauma" like "microaggressions." Your law school exam containing "n....." is a risible example.
I think one reason why is because the social currency of victimhood confers power on victims. So, no surprise that the definition of who is a "victim" explodes. It's almost a competition now.
And what does this do to us as individuals and as a culture? We are more "anxious." There is more "trauma." "Harm" lurks around every corner. "PTSD" is now a weapon.
This is not healthy. (See Jonathan Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind.")
"social currency of victimhood confers power on victims. So, no surprise that the definition of who is a "victim" explodes. It's almost a competition now."
Right. And it offers an ever-present excuse for bad behaviour that few people will be willing to challenge. After all, who wants to be the jerk questioning somebody's trauma reaction? Even if they're obviously being disingenuous.
Resilience, I think, has been one of the casualties of the war on masculinity. And it's a fine line. Too much resilience *can* look a lot like the stoic, don't talk about your feelings, bottle everything up brand of manliness that breeds school shooters and wife-beaters. It's important for the manliest of men to know when and how to talk about their feelings.
But too little resilience gives us the fragile, self-obsessed, everything that doesn't make me feel "validated" is hate, mindset we're seeing today.
As Haidt put it, what doesn't kill you makes you weaker.
You’re right, it’s a fine line. We’re way over it.
Stoicism gets a bad rap. The mental approach you expressed in the post is stoic--focus on what you can control versus what you can’t. I am a huge fan of Epictetus. Stoicism has little to do with suppressing your emotions. To the contrary, it’s the one thing you CAN control. And yes, people should control their emotions. That doesn’t mean don’t express them, only that they are not an excuse for selfishness or bad behavior. That is Epictetus’ message.
Nor do I think that stoicism, properly understood, has anything to do with school shooters, who are usually emotionally stunted cowards, not stoics. Ditto wife beaters. They are the opposite of stoics.
Nor do I think that stoicism is necessarily masculine. I agree with second wave feminism that that is a harmful stereotype.
Resilience is a virtue that has no gender. Other than that, I fully agree with what you say, Steve.
I strongly believe Julia was using words like 'trauma' in a real and meaningful context — the machinations of a trigger disabling your higher cognitive functions, so that you are left acting on pure (and irrational given the trauma is in the past) counterproductive emotion, is almost like a brain injury and it absolutely needs to be taken into account for those whose trauma has left them frozen in a certain emotional time and place. We need more treatment options for these people. Of course the concept of trauma has been trivialised and over used, but in this conversation I think it is represented accurately as a big stumbling block in the way of the forward direction Steve QJ rightly points towards.
"We need more treatment options for these people."
Absolutely true. I think the question is also the degree to which society encourages people to lean into their feelings of pain and trauma, rather than pulling themselves out of them.
As you say, there need to be more and better options to help people to pull themselves out, but society also needs to stop incentivising people to find and exaggerate examples of trauma for virtue/victimhood points.
I've had countless conversations, for example, where I've called somebody out for exaggerating or lying about the "traumas" inherent in being a black person. But people try these lies and exaggerations because they can be used as justifications for all kinds of bad behaviour. And garner sympathy and defence from onlookers.
This isn't a "black' problem, of course. It's a human problem. We all learn, right from the time we're babies, that there are advantages to gaming people's sympathy. But it's become a bit of an epidemic lately. And ultimately, hurts the people doing it the most .
You say that people need to pull themselves out of their pain and trauma, rather than leaning into their feelings. That makes it sounds like they are something external and problematic that have to be dealt with, rather than a normal aspect of human biology that sometimes get disturbed, disrupted. Feelings are the water in which we swim, but it seems we only notice them when they're painful or problematic.
It is irritating to deal with people who trivialize serious issues in what seem like frivolous bids for attention, but sadly, often that is the result of unprocessed trauma from childhood. When I was a teenager I met some pathological liars who were from hugely wealthy families, that lacked any emotional support whatsoever. Raised by nannies and maids. It seemed fairly obvious that they were trying to fill some enormous hole in themselves. Their seemingly perfect lives were so far from that they could have been the poster children for "Money Can't Buy You Love". That drove me to educate myself about psychology (no degree, much reading). Which in turn pushed me into therapy for myself. Where I learned about some of the underlying issues that were driving my own lack of success in relationships. Had I been born even ten years later the therapy culture may have helped me, but as it was I grew up in the "snap out of it/get over it" age and lacked support for understanding what was going on. Which, of course, had to do with multiple unprocessed traumas of the A.C.E. (Adverse Childhood Experiences) kind.
I believe that the only way to really deal with trauma (I'm talking violence, sexual violence, natural disaster, combat, etc) is to FIRST, lean into the feelings, learn how to let them be. Without processing those feelings, and learning how to cope with them as they arise, no solid recovery will happen. What might appear to be a resilient response can collapse in the face of more trauma, if you don't figure out how to handle--not avoid, dismiss, or deny--the frightening feelings that can be provoked by such experiences. That work does have side benefits, as I've discovered.
Anyway, thanks for having such real conversations and sharing them, and then having more. I don't always agree with your takes but your conviviality ensures that I always read what you have to say.
I love this. I was able to reestablish my self-respect when I drew a bright line against seeking approval from people who didn't bother to try to know or understand me. This works for anyone - family, community, whomever. You can't control what other people do. You CAN control how you react to what they do. You always have a choice in that sense - even when you are triggered you have choices. One of the ways out of PTSD is to realize that you have choices even in the midst of a triggering episode. Practice choosing to build emotional resilience.
"One of the ways out of PTSD is to realize that you have choices even in the midst of a triggering episode. Practice choosing to build emotional resilience."
Absolutely spot on. I think this is related to the "injustice" Julia talks about. It sucks that when you're dealing with a genuine emotional trigger, maybe from something truly horrible, you also need to find a way to talk yourself through it rationally instead of blaming the world for "triggering" you. I see how this feels unfair. But as I said to Julia, there's no other way.
So many of the problems in the world today are caused by the belief that the world should change to suit us instead of that we need to change so we can deal with the world. It's crazy the lengths people will go to to avoid doing that work on themselves.
TY again. This sums up my view of Western society these days:
"So many of the problems in the world today are caused by the belief that the world should change to suit us instead of that we need to change so we can deal with the world. It's crazy the lengths people will go to to avoid doing that work on themselves."
Hey Lightwing, sorry to be off-topic here but this is the only place I can get hold of you. Christofer Nigro & I are trying to get together an email convo with the folks who want to write an article about our collective experiences being banned, suspended, and/or kicked off Medium. I don't know if that happened to you but Christofer mentioned your name this morning. If you're interested in joining us (it'll start with a Zoom meeting) email me at nchardenet @ gmail dot com. (sorry Steve...back to our regularly scheduled on-topic discussions :) )
You're on the list...I just created it. The plan, once we have hear from the rest who may want to be in on it, is to create a Zoom meeting. I have a Calendly account so I'll send it out when we're ready. We'll have to chat about a good time for all. The Zoom call will be to figure out a way to do a collective article, and how we can share and publicize it.
Thanks for the invite. I am only on Medium as a commenter, not a contributor. I own a biz and serve on a business women's board of directors and don't have much free time. That said, anyone can email me at lightwing2@protonmail.com any time you like.
I think it's a great idea to call out bans wherever possible. If enough people begin to push back, we can reach a critical mass and turn the tide. Since I don't have time to do this online in a meaningful way, I donate to lawsuits and also subscribe to Substacks who are pushing back - Free Black Thought, The Commentary, Monica Harris. My most recent donation being to support Tabia Lee's lawsuit against DeAnza College. I've also supported Jodi Shaw, Maud Maron and several others (through FAIR and GoFundMe). Every little bit, no matter from what vector, helps. I salute your efforts! I want the country I swore to defend with my life back. I want a sane left back. We can do this. 🌼
Magic words are voodoo. They only can harm you if you believe they can, or you give them power.
Sometimes that is easier said than done. When the magic in the words is fighting words, young men and older ones who still think they are young might resort to violence. Not about the words, but the challenge to fight.
There are also words and phrases that are behind the veil, a thin veil. They are used for the same purpose as the depreciated magic words that people feel the need to *** out some of the letters and people use them quite freely. We call them triggers. They are staples in current tribal and political insult that takes the place of discussion on the internet. I could quote Mike Tyson.
"Not about the words, but the challenge to fight."
Yep, fighting words, magical insult words, first-initial-only words, it all comes down to the same thing in the end. We are responsible for how we react. No word forces us to get angry or feel sad or start swinging.
As for discourse, it's no coincidence that these kinds of words come out when people are losing the argument. They *want* a reaction so they can shift away from the argument they're losing. You always know you've won when the name-calling starts.
The times I have heard the “N” word, it has been Black to Black. Is the same solution to be used there? I have really never heard the “C” word used in my presence. These words are used by people who are inferior, or feel so! They are showing their lack of civility. I wish we could make them happier and more integrated.
"I understand the injustice of this of course, but there's simply no other way forward. The only other option is to convince people whose sole purpose is to hurt you to stop trying to hurt you. Obviously this is a losing strategy.
"Words have exactly as much power as we give them."
And:
"But I think we should also be doing everything we can to teach people, especially young people, that words by themselves DON'T have power."
And especially:
"We decide whether to buy into their beliefs about us. We decide how much power to give them.
"I suggest we give them none."
Along those lines, I think it's time for people to see the word "racist" for what it is. (Or should I say, the "r-word." ;-) TY, Steve.
"Along those lines, I think it's time for people to see the word "racist" for what it is."
The word "racist" definitely gets thrown around too lightly nowadays. But it's not *purely* an empty insult. Unlike a ni**er, a racist is a real, definable thing. And it's also true that some people are racist not out of malice, but because they've never really thought about their beliefs/attitudes.
It's not fair that victims have to do the work of moving beyond the trauma, but that's how it's been for humanity for millions of years, whether it's 'shit happens' (Maui fires destroy your entire 'hood) or someone does something intentionally horrible to you. It's not fair, but we all know what our parents tell us when we complain about that.
What many of today's young people don't understand, have never been taught I guess, is emotional resilience. It's been noted that suicide is higher for white men than black men; one theory why is that growing up in a racist society teaches one emotional resilience. A similar theory has been offered for why women seem to handle living alone better than many men; being alone before marriage, and then marriage where many of them still feel very alone, teaches them how to live with the loneliness.
Unfortunately, letting yourself be triggered by words is one's *choice* - I hope Julia finds the help she needs. Don't know if she needs professional help or not, but if she can't afford it, she can find support elsewhere. That was one of the earliest positive uses of the Internet, esp back in the largley AOL/Prodigy/The WELL days - finding your tribe and providing support (AIDS, breast cancer, 'coming out', various mental health struggles).
"Please, For The Love Of God, Can We Have A Serious Conversation About "Gender-Affirming Care" For Kids?"
It's happening. I'm sure within a year or 2 puberty blockers for the under 18s will not be standard practice for affirming care. European countries managed to curb that without all the fuss and divisive political showmanship Americans think they have to pull.
Interesting that Steve wrote this article and now this one shows up on the FdB substack in the same week: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/race-vs-class-is-a-tactical-question He makes the point that if you empower people, then toxic attitudes from others won't have as much power to hurt them. If you are an empowered person and believe in yourself, it's much harder to move you off your center.
“My basic gloss on racial inequality has been the same for forever: it’s futile to try and get everyone to not be interpersonally racist, but we can economically empower Black people and other people of color such that interpersonal racism no longer has the power to hurt them.”
His argument is that if you focus on class-first with regard to policy making, that this focus includes race and will empower black people such that interpersonal racism loses its ability to cause so much harm. But, if you focus on race-first policies, then you divide people into competing groups and as we have seen over at least the past 5 years or more, nothing practical gets accomplished and very few people are helped.
This is the world I wish to work toward. Here's hoping…
Interesting that Steve wrote this article and now this one shows up on the FdB substack in the same week: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/race-vs-class-is-a-tactical-question He makes the point that if you empower people, then toxic attitudes from others won't have as much power to hurt them. If you are an empowered person and believe in yourself, it's much harder to move you off your center.
“My basic gloss on racial inequality has been the same for forever: it’s futile to try and get everyone to not be interpersonally racist, but we can economically empower Black people and other people of color such that interpersonal racism no longer has the power to hurt them.”
His argument is that if you focus on class-first with regard to policy making, that this focus includes race and will empower black people such that interpersonal racism loses its ability to cause so much harm. But, if you focus on race-first policies, then you divide people into competing groups and as we have seen over at least the past 5 years or more, nothing practical gets accomplished and very few people are helped.
This is the world I wish to work toward. Here's hoping…
“My basic gloss on racial inequality has been the same for forever: it’s futile to try and get everyone to not be interpersonally racist, but we can economically empower Black people and other people of color such that interpersonal racism no longer has the power to hurt them.”
Interpersonal racism isn't a big problem. Who cares if some random person you pass on the street calls you a name? Besides, most people wouldn't dare, even if they are thinking it. Aside from keyboard warriors who act tough online, there's not much "damage" from "interpersonal racism". It's systemic racism that is the issue.
The American music industry is largely responsible for keeping the n-word alive as long as it has been, and exporting it all over the world. That along with a whole host of other bad words and bad ideas.
"Trauma," "Harm," "Abuse," "PTSD." What do these words mean now? I know what they meant to my dad's generation. (Hint: World War II.) For my dad, the emotional resilience you exhibit he expected from himself and from me, his son. You know who you are, so why should you care about the words or opinions of others who don't? This was simply "understood."
Julia does not reveal what these words mean to her. What is clear, however, is that the cultural incentives have been reversed. Resilience no longer has social currency in much of the West. Being "harmed," or "marginalized," does. So, it should not be a surprise that the words in quotes above now encompass "trauma" like "microaggressions." Your law school exam containing "n....." is a risible example.
I think one reason why is because the social currency of victimhood confers power on victims. So, no surprise that the definition of who is a "victim" explodes. It's almost a competition now.
And what does this do to us as individuals and as a culture? We are more "anxious." There is more "trauma." "Harm" lurks around every corner. "PTSD" is now a weapon.
This is not healthy. (See Jonathan Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind.")
"social currency of victimhood confers power on victims. So, no surprise that the definition of who is a "victim" explodes. It's almost a competition now."
Right. And it offers an ever-present excuse for bad behaviour that few people will be willing to challenge. After all, who wants to be the jerk questioning somebody's trauma reaction? Even if they're obviously being disingenuous.
Resilience, I think, has been one of the casualties of the war on masculinity. And it's a fine line. Too much resilience *can* look a lot like the stoic, don't talk about your feelings, bottle everything up brand of manliness that breeds school shooters and wife-beaters. It's important for the manliest of men to know when and how to talk about their feelings.
But too little resilience gives us the fragile, self-obsessed, everything that doesn't make me feel "validated" is hate, mindset we're seeing today.
As Haidt put it, what doesn't kill you makes you weaker.
You’re right, it’s a fine line. We’re way over it.
Stoicism gets a bad rap. The mental approach you expressed in the post is stoic--focus on what you can control versus what you can’t. I am a huge fan of Epictetus. Stoicism has little to do with suppressing your emotions. To the contrary, it’s the one thing you CAN control. And yes, people should control their emotions. That doesn’t mean don’t express them, only that they are not an excuse for selfishness or bad behavior. That is Epictetus’ message.
Nor do I think that stoicism, properly understood, has anything to do with school shooters, who are usually emotionally stunted cowards, not stoics. Ditto wife beaters. They are the opposite of stoics.
Nor do I think that stoicism is necessarily masculine. I agree with second wave feminism that that is a harmful stereotype.
Resilience is a virtue that has no gender. Other than that, I fully agree with what you say, Steve.
I strongly believe Julia was using words like 'trauma' in a real and meaningful context — the machinations of a trigger disabling your higher cognitive functions, so that you are left acting on pure (and irrational given the trauma is in the past) counterproductive emotion, is almost like a brain injury and it absolutely needs to be taken into account for those whose trauma has left them frozen in a certain emotional time and place. We need more treatment options for these people. Of course the concept of trauma has been trivialised and over used, but in this conversation I think it is represented accurately as a big stumbling block in the way of the forward direction Steve QJ rightly points towards.
Great convo all up.
"We need more treatment options for these people."
Absolutely true. I think the question is also the degree to which society encourages people to lean into their feelings of pain and trauma, rather than pulling themselves out of them.
As you say, there need to be more and better options to help people to pull themselves out, but society also needs to stop incentivising people to find and exaggerate examples of trauma for virtue/victimhood points.
I've had countless conversations, for example, where I've called somebody out for exaggerating or lying about the "traumas" inherent in being a black person. But people try these lies and exaggerations because they can be used as justifications for all kinds of bad behaviour. And garner sympathy and defence from onlookers.
This isn't a "black' problem, of course. It's a human problem. We all learn, right from the time we're babies, that there are advantages to gaming people's sympathy. But it's become a bit of an epidemic lately. And ultimately, hurts the people doing it the most .
You say that people need to pull themselves out of their pain and trauma, rather than leaning into their feelings. That makes it sounds like they are something external and problematic that have to be dealt with, rather than a normal aspect of human biology that sometimes get disturbed, disrupted. Feelings are the water in which we swim, but it seems we only notice them when they're painful or problematic.
It is irritating to deal with people who trivialize serious issues in what seem like frivolous bids for attention, but sadly, often that is the result of unprocessed trauma from childhood. When I was a teenager I met some pathological liars who were from hugely wealthy families, that lacked any emotional support whatsoever. Raised by nannies and maids. It seemed fairly obvious that they were trying to fill some enormous hole in themselves. Their seemingly perfect lives were so far from that they could have been the poster children for "Money Can't Buy You Love". That drove me to educate myself about psychology (no degree, much reading). Which in turn pushed me into therapy for myself. Where I learned about some of the underlying issues that were driving my own lack of success in relationships. Had I been born even ten years later the therapy culture may have helped me, but as it was I grew up in the "snap out of it/get over it" age and lacked support for understanding what was going on. Which, of course, had to do with multiple unprocessed traumas of the A.C.E. (Adverse Childhood Experiences) kind.
I believe that the only way to really deal with trauma (I'm talking violence, sexual violence, natural disaster, combat, etc) is to FIRST, lean into the feelings, learn how to let them be. Without processing those feelings, and learning how to cope with them as they arise, no solid recovery will happen. What might appear to be a resilient response can collapse in the face of more trauma, if you don't figure out how to handle--not avoid, dismiss, or deny--the frightening feelings that can be provoked by such experiences. That work does have side benefits, as I've discovered.
Anyway, thanks for having such real conversations and sharing them, and then having more. I don't always agree with your takes but your conviviality ensures that I always read what you have to say.
This is golden Miguelitro. Not healthy indeed
I love this. I was able to reestablish my self-respect when I drew a bright line against seeking approval from people who didn't bother to try to know or understand me. This works for anyone - family, community, whomever. You can't control what other people do. You CAN control how you react to what they do. You always have a choice in that sense - even when you are triggered you have choices. One of the ways out of PTSD is to realize that you have choices even in the midst of a triggering episode. Practice choosing to build emotional resilience.
"One of the ways out of PTSD is to realize that you have choices even in the midst of a triggering episode. Practice choosing to build emotional resilience."
Absolutely spot on. I think this is related to the "injustice" Julia talks about. It sucks that when you're dealing with a genuine emotional trigger, maybe from something truly horrible, you also need to find a way to talk yourself through it rationally instead of blaming the world for "triggering" you. I see how this feels unfair. But as I said to Julia, there's no other way.
So many of the problems in the world today are caused by the belief that the world should change to suit us instead of that we need to change so we can deal with the world. It's crazy the lengths people will go to to avoid doing that work on themselves.
TY again. This sums up my view of Western society these days:
"So many of the problems in the world today are caused by the belief that the world should change to suit us instead of that we need to change so we can deal with the world. It's crazy the lengths people will go to to avoid doing that work on themselves."
<puke>
Hey Lightwing, sorry to be off-topic here but this is the only place I can get hold of you. Christofer Nigro & I are trying to get together an email convo with the folks who want to write an article about our collective experiences being banned, suspended, and/or kicked off Medium. I don't know if that happened to you but Christofer mentioned your name this morning. If you're interested in joining us (it'll start with a Zoom meeting) email me at nchardenet @ gmail dot com. (sorry Steve...back to our regularly scheduled on-topic discussions :) )
This sounds super interesting!
You're on the list...I just created it. The plan, once we have hear from the rest who may want to be in on it, is to create a Zoom meeting. I have a Calendly account so I'll send it out when we're ready. We'll have to chat about a good time for all. The Zoom call will be to figure out a way to do a collective article, and how we can share and publicize it.
Thanks for the invite. I am only on Medium as a commenter, not a contributor. I own a biz and serve on a business women's board of directors and don't have much free time. That said, anyone can email me at lightwing2@protonmail.com any time you like.
I think it's a great idea to call out bans wherever possible. If enough people begin to push back, we can reach a critical mass and turn the tide. Since I don't have time to do this online in a meaningful way, I donate to lawsuits and also subscribe to Substacks who are pushing back - Free Black Thought, The Commentary, Monica Harris. My most recent donation being to support Tabia Lee's lawsuit against DeAnza College. I've also supported Jodi Shaw, Maud Maron and several others (through FAIR and GoFundMe). Every little bit, no matter from what vector, helps. I salute your efforts! I want the country I swore to defend with my life back. I want a sane left back. We can do this. 🌼
Okay, well I'll hang on to your email anyway, but I won't add you to the email list I've created. We appreciate your support for free speech!
You are a stoic!👍🏼
Magic words are voodoo. They only can harm you if you believe they can, or you give them power.
Sometimes that is easier said than done. When the magic in the words is fighting words, young men and older ones who still think they are young might resort to violence. Not about the words, but the challenge to fight.
There are also words and phrases that are behind the veil, a thin veil. They are used for the same purpose as the depreciated magic words that people feel the need to *** out some of the letters and people use them quite freely. We call them triggers. They are staples in current tribal and political insult that takes the place of discussion on the internet. I could quote Mike Tyson.
"Not about the words, but the challenge to fight."
Yep, fighting words, magical insult words, first-initial-only words, it all comes down to the same thing in the end. We are responsible for how we react. No word forces us to get angry or feel sad or start swinging.
As for discourse, it's no coincidence that these kinds of words come out when people are losing the argument. They *want* a reaction so they can shift away from the argument they're losing. You always know you've won when the name-calling starts.
The times I have heard the “N” word, it has been Black to Black. Is the same solution to be used there? I have really never heard the “C” word used in my presence. These words are used by people who are inferior, or feel so! They are showing their lack of civility. I wish we could make them happier and more integrated.
"I wish we could make them happier and more integrated."
Yep, as Julia said, mental healthcare is really important for all sides of this issue.
Great post. These were my favorite parts:
"I understand the injustice of this of course, but there's simply no other way forward. The only other option is to convince people whose sole purpose is to hurt you to stop trying to hurt you. Obviously this is a losing strategy.
"Words have exactly as much power as we give them."
And:
"But I think we should also be doing everything we can to teach people, especially young people, that words by themselves DON'T have power."
And especially:
"We decide whether to buy into their beliefs about us. We decide how much power to give them.
"I suggest we give them none."
Along those lines, I think it's time for people to see the word "racist" for what it is. (Or should I say, the "r-word." ;-) TY, Steve.
"Along those lines, I think it's time for people to see the word "racist" for what it is."
The word "racist" definitely gets thrown around too lightly nowadays. But it's not *purely* an empty insult. Unlike a ni**er, a racist is a real, definable thing. And it's also true that some people are racist not out of malice, but because they've never really thought about their beliefs/attitudes.
No, not purely an empty insult.
What I'm referring to, mainly, isn't an insult but a threat. If someone is (perceived as) a racist, someone can get fired these days, right? Why else this story? https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-professor-suspended-redacted-slurs-law-school-exam-sues-university-illinois-chicago
And the one about the rock and U. of Wisconsin-Madison? Why else would the admin cave? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/opinion/antiracism-university-wisconsin-rock.html
(I agree with Professor McWhorter, BTW:)
"Yes, racism persists in our society in many ways, and administrators serving up craven condescension as antiracism are fine examples of it."
It's not fair that victims have to do the work of moving beyond the trauma, but that's how it's been for humanity for millions of years, whether it's 'shit happens' (Maui fires destroy your entire 'hood) or someone does something intentionally horrible to you. It's not fair, but we all know what our parents tell us when we complain about that.
What many of today's young people don't understand, have never been taught I guess, is emotional resilience. It's been noted that suicide is higher for white men than black men; one theory why is that growing up in a racist society teaches one emotional resilience. A similar theory has been offered for why women seem to handle living alone better than many men; being alone before marriage, and then marriage where many of them still feel very alone, teaches them how to live with the loneliness.
Unfortunately, letting yourself be triggered by words is one's *choice* - I hope Julia finds the help she needs. Don't know if she needs professional help or not, but if she can't afford it, she can find support elsewhere. That was one of the earliest positive uses of the Internet, esp back in the largley AOL/Prodigy/The WELL days - finding your tribe and providing support (AIDS, breast cancer, 'coming out', various mental health struggles).
"Please, For The Love Of God, Can We Have A Serious Conversation About "Gender-Affirming Care" For Kids?"
It's happening. I'm sure within a year or 2 puberty blockers for the under 18s will not be standard practice for affirming care. European countries managed to curb that without all the fuss and divisive political showmanship Americans think they have to pull.
Interesting that Steve wrote this article and now this one shows up on the FdB substack in the same week: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/race-vs-class-is-a-tactical-question He makes the point that if you empower people, then toxic attitudes from others won't have as much power to hurt them. If you are an empowered person and believe in yourself, it's much harder to move you off your center.
“My basic gloss on racial inequality has been the same for forever: it’s futile to try and get everyone to not be interpersonally racist, but we can economically empower Black people and other people of color such that interpersonal racism no longer has the power to hurt them.”
His argument is that if you focus on class-first with regard to policy making, that this focus includes race and will empower black people such that interpersonal racism loses its ability to cause so much harm. But, if you focus on race-first policies, then you divide people into competing groups and as we have seen over at least the past 5 years or more, nothing practical gets accomplished and very few people are helped.
This is the world I wish to work toward. Here's hoping…
Interesting that Steve wrote this article and now this one shows up on the FdB substack in the same week: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/race-vs-class-is-a-tactical-question He makes the point that if you empower people, then toxic attitudes from others won't have as much power to hurt them. If you are an empowered person and believe in yourself, it's much harder to move you off your center.
“My basic gloss on racial inequality has been the same for forever: it’s futile to try and get everyone to not be interpersonally racist, but we can economically empower Black people and other people of color such that interpersonal racism no longer has the power to hurt them.”
His argument is that if you focus on class-first with regard to policy making, that this focus includes race and will empower black people such that interpersonal racism loses its ability to cause so much harm. But, if you focus on race-first policies, then you divide people into competing groups and as we have seen over at least the past 5 years or more, nothing practical gets accomplished and very few people are helped.
This is the world I wish to work toward. Here's hoping…
“My basic gloss on racial inequality has been the same for forever: it’s futile to try and get everyone to not be interpersonally racist, but we can economically empower Black people and other people of color such that interpersonal racism no longer has the power to hurt them.”
Interpersonal racism isn't a big problem. Who cares if some random person you pass on the street calls you a name? Besides, most people wouldn't dare, even if they are thinking it. Aside from keyboard warriors who act tough online, there's not much "damage" from "interpersonal racism". It's systemic racism that is the issue.
The American music industry is largely responsible for keeping the n-word alive as long as it has been, and exporting it all over the world. That along with a whole host of other bad words and bad ideas.