On Trauma, Helplessness, and Political Outrage

[Noel_Prosequi]

I can’t help but think that a central aspect to the problem is absolutism. Not absolute power; I mean absolute truth.

Some simple historical facts, like “WW2 happened”, or “Lincoln was President”, are capable of being determined beyond sensible dispute.

But most of the inputs in arguments are questions like the best balance of government and free enterprise at a level of abstraction that does not admit of absolutism. Discussions about these things require negotiation and compromise.

But proponents in modern debates insist on presenting their side in absolute terms. Their position on Obamacare is expressed in terms that represent their views as having the same truth value as the proposition that the oceans exist. Of course, they don’t.

But if you believe you have the absolute truth, then no compromise or negotiation is possible. Absolute truth is, precisely because of its absolute accuracy, represented as a value that must not be betrayed. It has a quality above all other qualities. Having the absolute truth about the economy or about God, means that there are no limits to protecting it. You can lie, you can undermine human rights, you can kill, all to protect the absolute quality of your truth.

And the same principle is applied in debates. You can shout, be derisory, discourteous and rude, because the possessor of absolute truth is excused from the “normal” rules about such things when absolute truth is on the line.

Of course, as a matter of rhetoric, it suits some to pretend that all the beliefs they hold have this absolute quality. This liberates them from the constraints and restraint of normal discourse and allows (in their mind) any amount of bullying or attention seeking. And loud, simple propositions have always got more attention than nuanced arguments.

Religious absolutists now and historically happily slaughter people in defence of their absolutist views, because of this idea that truth trumps all other qualities.

But naturally, most propositions of sufficient complexity are not capable of being conceived of as absolutely true. They are actually judgments about balance, or guidelines that admit exceptions, or default positions whose applicability may vary in different situations.

So maybe spotting shrieking arguments as attempts to pretend that the debate is about invariant truth might be a step to returning them to the realm of manageability.

[Leaper]

If so many of the arguments in politics today weren’t about the basic human rights of some group of people, I’m assuming things would be a lot less heated than they are. I mean, it’s one thing to debate over whether cutting taxes will increase revenues in the long run, and quite another to argue whether everyone of a certain religion should be expelled from the country. And when one side’s deeply held religious beliefs demand the non personhood of a certain segment of people, I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how to heal that kind of rift between them and the segment in question.

Another one that occurs to me is the environment, specifically climate change. Again, I’m not sure what healing looks like there when one side is totally unconcerned, while the other thinks we’re racing against the clock to save civilization as we know it.

Those specifically are the nuts I find hardest to crack. Most other major issues, even guns, I can see SOME daylight for.

[puddleglum]

@Leaper

If so many of the arguments in politics today weren’t about the basic human rights of some group of people, I’m assuming things would be a lot less heated than they are. I mean, it’s one thing to debate over whether cutting taxes will increase revenues in the long run, and quite another to argue whether everyone of a certain religion should be expelled from the country. And when one side’s deeply held religious beliefs demand the non personhood of a certain segment of people, I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how to heal that kind of rift between them and the segment in question.

Another one that occurs to me is the environment, specifically climate change. Again, I’m not sure what healing looks like there when one side is totally unconcerned, while the other thinks we’re racing against the clock to save civilization as we know it.

Those specifically are the nuts I find hardest to crack. Most other major issues, even guns, I can see SOME daylight for.

Luckily for us, no one influential is advocating to expel all people of certain religions from this country. Non-personhood of a group of people could be done like it is in every other country. Just overturn Roe v Wade and let each state decide how much to regulate abortion. Deciding to take the decision out of the democratic process was led to the heat in the debate.
As for global warming, hysteria over the environment will always be with us, as people get older they learn to ignore the hysterics.

[Leaper]

Thanks for the demonstration.

[Ludovic]

What demonstration?

[Spice_Weasel]

@octopus

I used to play games online like Ultima Online way back at the beginning. When I played them I’d get so upset when one of the other players would rob my character or kill my character. Especially if they spent time building up trust beforehand. It felt awful.

After awhile I came to the conclusion that those were the rules of the game and I could choose to participate or not.

I think one key way in which we are different may be illustrated here. I’m not okay with players treating you like shit. And if it were me, I wouldn’t be okay with them treating me that way either. (Actually, this is why I don’t play MMOs.) I think if it were something I really wanted to do, I would seek to transform the culture from my own example. But I can’t look at an injustice of any kind without trying to figure out what to do about it. I’m not just going to leave it, and leave people to suffer. That’s a thing about me that’s never going to change, and that I don’t want to change.

That doesn’t mean my approach has to be all fire and brimstone, though.

What is the compulsion to read a thread, waste a few minutes of one’s finite life, get all worked up, and post tedium?

I don’t know how worked up other people are really getting, but it was a definite compulsion for me (few minutes? try hours a day, for days) and it was definitely trauma (rumination is a major symptom), which was the point of the OP. My husband would always ask me, ''Why are you trolling yourself?"

‘‘Because I have to stop what happened to me from happening to other people. It is my responsibility.’’

Jesus, what a burden. I’m not giving up the fight but I am letting go of the burden. The idea that I have some kind of moral imperative to reach some deeper understanding with hateful people on the internet was just another fucked up cognition. It was me trying to reason with my mother, over and over, heedless of the abuse she threw at me. So yeah, done.

TLDR: It’s healthy to not care about what random people think. Some of those random people may not be good for your health and you definitely don’t need their approval.

On this point, we are agreed.

@Leaper

If so many of the arguments in politics today weren’t about the basic human rights of some group of people, I’m assuming things would be a lot less heated than they are. I mean, it’s one thing to debate over whether cutting taxes will increase revenues in the long run, and quite another to argue whether everyone of a certain religion should be expelled from the country. And when one side’s deeply held religious beliefs demand the non personhood of a certain segment of people, I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how to heal that kind of rift between them and the segment in question.

You raise a valid point and I think for some people anger is probably a healthy response, but I guess what I’m really getting at when I say healing is not healing the rift between people of dissenting beliefs, but rather healing the part of ourselves that screams desperately for understanding. The 2016 election season, according to my husband, was a boon for trauma psychologists at his practice, who found their rosters filled with people who have all sorts of issues being dredged up. We are a stressed, angry society and even if our experiences aren’t capital t Trauma, it’s all coming from some place within us that isn’t at peace with the hand we’ve been dealt. I’m suggesting there may be some work to do there, internally.

@Noel_Prosequi

I can’t help but think that a central aspect to the problem is absolutism. Not absolute power; I mean absolute truth.

Some simple historical facts, like “WW2 happened”, or “Lincoln was President”, are capable of being determined beyond sensible dispute.

But most of the inputs in arguments are questions like the best balance of government and free enterprise at a level of abstraction that does not admit of absolutism. Discussions about these things require negotiation and compromise.

Absolutely. (heh.) I think breaking free of this desperation-rage cycle necessitates the realization that your narrative is just that - a story. It can be rewritten at will, and others have their own, and a starting point is just recognizing that all these ‘‘truths’’ you hold as sancrosanct are just a bunch of shit you made up in your head to cope with the challenges of your own life.