![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is going to get long. I've got a personal dilemma I've been trying to work out. Explaining the relevant background in what is hopefully a comprehensible manner will involve several metaphorical examples and a lot of jumping around to cover different aspects. I expect there will also be a fair bit of rambling.
For the record, this is not about any one person, incident, or what have you. It's a very general issue, which is actually part of the difficulty. And I had this entry planned for today and pretty much written out in my head this morning before I checked email. (And I plan to write it and post it before I check email again.)
Bruce Wayne is not normal. And I mean that in a very specific sense. As a child, he saw his parents shot and killed by a mugger. Quite naturally and understandably, he now has extreme reactions to guns and street crime. Natural and understandable, but not normal.
As far as guns go, I believe in gun control. You need a license to drive a car because, for all that it's intended as a means of transportation, if you don't know what you're doing it can be very dangerous. So, to get the license, you have to pass tests (both verbal and practical) to prove that you do know what you're doing. If you've proven that you can't use it safely and responsibly, that license can be suspended or revoked. A gun is not designed for transportation. It's designed solely to hurt and kill things. And the rate of accidents is nothing to sneeze at. It seems only reasonable that a prospective gun owner should have to go through at least as much testing as a prospective driver. On the other hand, I can see problems with placing too many restrictions on gun ownership and I can respect that, although I wouldn't want a gun myself, people have a variety of valid reasons for wanting to personally own a gun. I also recognize that there are people on both sides of the issue who would respectfully disagree with me on part or all of the above.
Bruce Wayne hates guns. He has a visceral reaction to them. His adopted son became a police officer, and Bruce flipped out because part of the job meant carrying a gun.
Muggings are bad. Duh. If I see one, I'll probably try to do something about it. Like maybe duck around the corner and call the cops. Or maybe duck around the corner and shout, "Hey, there's someone being mugged over here!" I don't have the skill or ability to intervene directly, and trying (unless there was an unusually good opportunity) would as likely as not make things worse. I also understand that there are reasons that people become muggers. It's a bad choice, but when you don't have any good options, making the wrong choice becomes more understandable. And, seeing that, maybe the thing to do is to try to deal with the underlying issues. I also see that there are a lot of other things going on in the world that need to be addressed, many of them worse than street crime.
Bruce Wayne dedicated years of his life and vast personal resources to be able to personally stop as many muggings as possible. He put on a mask and a costume and went actively looking for criminals to fight.
And then Bruce Wayne became part of a group. A group of people who, for various reasons and in various ways, put on costumes and dedicate their lives to fighting crime.
It turns out that humans are wired for group identification. Even if you're told at the outset that the group is randomly selected. You start to see yourself as part of the group. Then people who aren't part of the group become outsiders. Then you start to focus on reasons why the people in your group (and thus, by extension, you) are better than others. It's just how we're wired.
That leads to groupthink. The group develops its own language, its own shorthand. It develops its own point of view. And that point of view gradually moves towards the extreme. The people around you are the good guys. They believe X. Therefore, the more you believe in X, the better you are. That idea bounces around within the group like an echo chamber, becoming stronger with repetition. And so the more extreme ideas seem to become more normal and rational. The group's center moves more to the extreme. And the people who don't believe in that extreme become more and more vilified. Different aspects of that happen to varying degrees depending on a lot of circumstances (what it's about, how isolated the group is, how strong group bonds are, how large the group is, etc etc), but it happens. It's basic human instinct.
It's happening in American politics right now. I've talked about that before. The explosion of available information sources and the improvement of global communications have led to more isolation of political groups. Neutral sources are disappearing. You believe the people who tell you what you want to hear and you disbelieve the others. You talk more and more with the people who already agree with you. Each side becomes more of an echo chamber, the whole thing becomes more polarized, the two sides move farther apart, and it becomes harder and harder to bridge the divide.
Or take the case of a man who was attacked by a dog. Naturally and understandably, there's a good chance he'll develop an extreme reaction to dogs. Maybe he'll find himself part of a group of people who, for various reasons and in various ways, don't like dogs. Or let's say dogs who aren't on leashes. Being with the group will reinforce the idea more and more that unleashed dogs are a terrible scourge. Soon, he starts to see everything first through the group lens. He walks past a store with a dog as the logo, and the first thing he sees is that the dog doesn't have a leash on, which angers him. Even though it's just a logo, it's the thing he hates and it represents the idea that it's okay to have dogs without leashes and gets people used to the idea and it's wrong and terrible... Understandable, but not normal.
Back to the muggers - my first proposed solution was to call the police. It's a good thing we have police. And if there aren't enough of them, it becomes a lot harder to stop things like muggings. Without them at all, we'd have anarchy. Police are good. But you can also go too far to the other side. Too many police and too much enforcement leads to a police state. Everyone afraid to act at all, not because of the crime but because of the overzealousness of the people who are supposed to protect them. Too much of a good thing can be just as much of a problem as not enough.
Similarly, there's the case of the term "politically correct." There was a movement in the early 90's or so to educate people on how to be more sensitive and less offensive. All sorts of phrases and images were attacked, revamped, etc. Good idea. But then... groupthink, echo chambers, extremism. If you carry it too far, people start to resent it. You start fighting over anything that looks even a little wrong, and you start to look ridiculous. You sound the alarm at every possible instance, and people start to think you're crying wolf. You enforce the idea too strongly, and you end up creating a police state in which everyone is afraid to talk for fear of violating the rules and offending someone. You go too far, and you end up hurting the cause more than helping it. A backlash develops, and things that genuinely need to be addressed are dismissed as just another attack from the extremes or are drowned out by the noise. The whole phrase "politically correct" takes on a derogatory connotation, it becomes harder to bake taken seriously, and eventually it all implodes. Too much of a good thing.
I believe in balance. I believe in trying to see both sides of an issue. I believe in trying to understand the other person both through their point of view and through relation to my own personal understanding and experience (which are two very different processes, yielding different but helpful results). It's not something I can always manage, especially these days, but it's what I try for.
I believe in abortion rights. I believe it's wrong to take that option away. It's not a choice to be made lightly, it's not something to do for frivolous reasons, but it's a choice that sometimes has to be made. Furthermore, I believe that outlawing it would only make things worse. But I understand that there are people who believe that it's religiously and morally wrong. That the deliberate taking of a human life, even unborn and not fully developed, is murder. I disagree with them, but I understand where they're coming from, and I think that's important. There are extremists on that side who have given up on civil debate and legal proceedings. They've taken to terrorism - attempts to change the political and practical reality through violence and intimidation. I don't condone that in any way. But I understand what drives it. I can stop and see how it would look. A society that not only allows the killing of innocent babies but provides the people and organizations to carry it out with legal protections and taxpayer-funded security. The fight to change that going nowhere. I wouldn't turn to violence, but I understand what fuels it. That doesn't make it right or acceptable, but I think it's important to stop and see how things look from the other side.
It's moderation. It's balance. It's proportional response. It's keeping things from going too far. It's looking to see all sides as best you can, even if you disagree.
Which brings me, finally, to my dilemma. Dreamwidth. I love the site for many reasons. The culture of acceptance, the open-minded approach, the sense of community, the way it's built, the way it's being developed, the responsiveness of the developers and the support staff, the way it's all geared towards maximum utility, the opportunity it's provided me to meet new people and see new things. There's a lot to say for it.
But I'm not part of the core group. I don't speak the language. And I don't feel comfortable with it. I feel stifled. Like I can't open my mouth on a whole range of topics because I'll be seen through the group lens first. Misunderstood. Shouted down. Despised. Condescended to. We believe in the same ideals, but I think the group as a whole has gone too far. Become over-sensitive and hyper-vigilant. With reason in each individual case, I'm sure, but reinforced by groupthink, pushed towards the extreme, and no longer grounded. Too much of a good thing. No room to consider the other side, even if it is wrong.
For a lesser example, there's the whole idea of the "thanks for making me smile" cards. On LJ, I got people who knew and understood me saying that it's sweet and flattering and a nice idea. On DW, I got warnings about how it could be creepy or triggery and the obvious ways (in some cases, ways in which I'd explicitly stated I'd already considered) to avoid certain pitfalls. Understandable. Some of them points that needed to be made. And it led to a good compromise solution. A version of the idea that took both sides into account. By itself, that would have been helpful and instructive (mostly, anyway). But my point is that it's two entirely different atmospheres. Two entirely different lenses through which just about everything is seen.
I don't want to argue about it. I'm stating my position and my dilemma. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.
I don't belong in/with the group. But I need friends. I need social contact. I need something to do. And I feel so much potential in the site.
There are other people here, I'm sure. People with other interests and more moderate views. But I'm going through a lot of crap and I'm emotionally worn out and vulnerable. I'm in no position to put myself forward and try to make a case for myself. And besides, I just don't have the energy for it.
I'm also in no position to handle criticism. That's weak and stupid and I hate it, but that's the way it is. I'm just too fragile to deal with it properly.
I can't afford to cut too many ties. Not without making new ones. But I don't think I can maintain some of the ones I have and I can't reach out in new directions.
So... what do I do?
Close up shop? Give up? Try again elsewhere? Somehow? Somewhere?
Just keep going and hope things work themselves out?
Something else I haven't thought of?
If you have constructive/helpful ideas, please share them.
If your reaction is to tell me that I'm a jerk, that I'm wrong, to provide me with a slew of links to variety of informative articles, or anything along those lines... please leave. Quietly. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that means closing this entry without comment or unsubscribing entirely.
For the record, this is not about any one person, incident, or what have you. It's a very general issue, which is actually part of the difficulty. And I had this entry planned for today and pretty much written out in my head this morning before I checked email. (And I plan to write it and post it before I check email again.)
Bruce Wayne is not normal. And I mean that in a very specific sense. As a child, he saw his parents shot and killed by a mugger. Quite naturally and understandably, he now has extreme reactions to guns and street crime. Natural and understandable, but not normal.
As far as guns go, I believe in gun control. You need a license to drive a car because, for all that it's intended as a means of transportation, if you don't know what you're doing it can be very dangerous. So, to get the license, you have to pass tests (both verbal and practical) to prove that you do know what you're doing. If you've proven that you can't use it safely and responsibly, that license can be suspended or revoked. A gun is not designed for transportation. It's designed solely to hurt and kill things. And the rate of accidents is nothing to sneeze at. It seems only reasonable that a prospective gun owner should have to go through at least as much testing as a prospective driver. On the other hand, I can see problems with placing too many restrictions on gun ownership and I can respect that, although I wouldn't want a gun myself, people have a variety of valid reasons for wanting to personally own a gun. I also recognize that there are people on both sides of the issue who would respectfully disagree with me on part or all of the above.
Bruce Wayne hates guns. He has a visceral reaction to them. His adopted son became a police officer, and Bruce flipped out because part of the job meant carrying a gun.
Muggings are bad. Duh. If I see one, I'll probably try to do something about it. Like maybe duck around the corner and call the cops. Or maybe duck around the corner and shout, "Hey, there's someone being mugged over here!" I don't have the skill or ability to intervene directly, and trying (unless there was an unusually good opportunity) would as likely as not make things worse. I also understand that there are reasons that people become muggers. It's a bad choice, but when you don't have any good options, making the wrong choice becomes more understandable. And, seeing that, maybe the thing to do is to try to deal with the underlying issues. I also see that there are a lot of other things going on in the world that need to be addressed, many of them worse than street crime.
Bruce Wayne dedicated years of his life and vast personal resources to be able to personally stop as many muggings as possible. He put on a mask and a costume and went actively looking for criminals to fight.
And then Bruce Wayne became part of a group. A group of people who, for various reasons and in various ways, put on costumes and dedicate their lives to fighting crime.
It turns out that humans are wired for group identification. Even if you're told at the outset that the group is randomly selected. You start to see yourself as part of the group. Then people who aren't part of the group become outsiders. Then you start to focus on reasons why the people in your group (and thus, by extension, you) are better than others. It's just how we're wired.
That leads to groupthink. The group develops its own language, its own shorthand. It develops its own point of view. And that point of view gradually moves towards the extreme. The people around you are the good guys. They believe X. Therefore, the more you believe in X, the better you are. That idea bounces around within the group like an echo chamber, becoming stronger with repetition. And so the more extreme ideas seem to become more normal and rational. The group's center moves more to the extreme. And the people who don't believe in that extreme become more and more vilified. Different aspects of that happen to varying degrees depending on a lot of circumstances (what it's about, how isolated the group is, how strong group bonds are, how large the group is, etc etc), but it happens. It's basic human instinct.
It's happening in American politics right now. I've talked about that before. The explosion of available information sources and the improvement of global communications have led to more isolation of political groups. Neutral sources are disappearing. You believe the people who tell you what you want to hear and you disbelieve the others. You talk more and more with the people who already agree with you. Each side becomes more of an echo chamber, the whole thing becomes more polarized, the two sides move farther apart, and it becomes harder and harder to bridge the divide.
Or take the case of a man who was attacked by a dog. Naturally and understandably, there's a good chance he'll develop an extreme reaction to dogs. Maybe he'll find himself part of a group of people who, for various reasons and in various ways, don't like dogs. Or let's say dogs who aren't on leashes. Being with the group will reinforce the idea more and more that unleashed dogs are a terrible scourge. Soon, he starts to see everything first through the group lens. He walks past a store with a dog as the logo, and the first thing he sees is that the dog doesn't have a leash on, which angers him. Even though it's just a logo, it's the thing he hates and it represents the idea that it's okay to have dogs without leashes and gets people used to the idea and it's wrong and terrible... Understandable, but not normal.
Back to the muggers - my first proposed solution was to call the police. It's a good thing we have police. And if there aren't enough of them, it becomes a lot harder to stop things like muggings. Without them at all, we'd have anarchy. Police are good. But you can also go too far to the other side. Too many police and too much enforcement leads to a police state. Everyone afraid to act at all, not because of the crime but because of the overzealousness of the people who are supposed to protect them. Too much of a good thing can be just as much of a problem as not enough.
Similarly, there's the case of the term "politically correct." There was a movement in the early 90's or so to educate people on how to be more sensitive and less offensive. All sorts of phrases and images were attacked, revamped, etc. Good idea. But then... groupthink, echo chambers, extremism. If you carry it too far, people start to resent it. You start fighting over anything that looks even a little wrong, and you start to look ridiculous. You sound the alarm at every possible instance, and people start to think you're crying wolf. You enforce the idea too strongly, and you end up creating a police state in which everyone is afraid to talk for fear of violating the rules and offending someone. You go too far, and you end up hurting the cause more than helping it. A backlash develops, and things that genuinely need to be addressed are dismissed as just another attack from the extremes or are drowned out by the noise. The whole phrase "politically correct" takes on a derogatory connotation, it becomes harder to bake taken seriously, and eventually it all implodes. Too much of a good thing.
I believe in balance. I believe in trying to see both sides of an issue. I believe in trying to understand the other person both through their point of view and through relation to my own personal understanding and experience (which are two very different processes, yielding different but helpful results). It's not something I can always manage, especially these days, but it's what I try for.
I believe in abortion rights. I believe it's wrong to take that option away. It's not a choice to be made lightly, it's not something to do for frivolous reasons, but it's a choice that sometimes has to be made. Furthermore, I believe that outlawing it would only make things worse. But I understand that there are people who believe that it's religiously and morally wrong. That the deliberate taking of a human life, even unborn and not fully developed, is murder. I disagree with them, but I understand where they're coming from, and I think that's important. There are extremists on that side who have given up on civil debate and legal proceedings. They've taken to terrorism - attempts to change the political and practical reality through violence and intimidation. I don't condone that in any way. But I understand what drives it. I can stop and see how it would look. A society that not only allows the killing of innocent babies but provides the people and organizations to carry it out with legal protections and taxpayer-funded security. The fight to change that going nowhere. I wouldn't turn to violence, but I understand what fuels it. That doesn't make it right or acceptable, but I think it's important to stop and see how things look from the other side.
It's moderation. It's balance. It's proportional response. It's keeping things from going too far. It's looking to see all sides as best you can, even if you disagree.
Which brings me, finally, to my dilemma. Dreamwidth. I love the site for many reasons. The culture of acceptance, the open-minded approach, the sense of community, the way it's built, the way it's being developed, the responsiveness of the developers and the support staff, the way it's all geared towards maximum utility, the opportunity it's provided me to meet new people and see new things. There's a lot to say for it.
But I'm not part of the core group. I don't speak the language. And I don't feel comfortable with it. I feel stifled. Like I can't open my mouth on a whole range of topics because I'll be seen through the group lens first. Misunderstood. Shouted down. Despised. Condescended to. We believe in the same ideals, but I think the group as a whole has gone too far. Become over-sensitive and hyper-vigilant. With reason in each individual case, I'm sure, but reinforced by groupthink, pushed towards the extreme, and no longer grounded. Too much of a good thing. No room to consider the other side, even if it is wrong.
For a lesser example, there's the whole idea of the "thanks for making me smile" cards. On LJ, I got people who knew and understood me saying that it's sweet and flattering and a nice idea. On DW, I got warnings about how it could be creepy or triggery and the obvious ways (in some cases, ways in which I'd explicitly stated I'd already considered) to avoid certain pitfalls. Understandable. Some of them points that needed to be made. And it led to a good compromise solution. A version of the idea that took both sides into account. By itself, that would have been helpful and instructive (mostly, anyway). But my point is that it's two entirely different atmospheres. Two entirely different lenses through which just about everything is seen.
I don't want to argue about it. I'm stating my position and my dilemma. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me.
I don't belong in/with the group. But I need friends. I need social contact. I need something to do. And I feel so much potential in the site.
There are other people here, I'm sure. People with other interests and more moderate views. But I'm going through a lot of crap and I'm emotionally worn out and vulnerable. I'm in no position to put myself forward and try to make a case for myself. And besides, I just don't have the energy for it.
I'm also in no position to handle criticism. That's weak and stupid and I hate it, but that's the way it is. I'm just too fragile to deal with it properly.
I can't afford to cut too many ties. Not without making new ones. But I don't think I can maintain some of the ones I have and I can't reach out in new directions.
So... what do I do?
Close up shop? Give up? Try again elsewhere? Somehow? Somewhere?
Just keep going and hope things work themselves out?
Something else I haven't thought of?
If you have constructive/helpful ideas, please share them.
If your reaction is to tell me that I'm a jerk, that I'm wrong, to provide me with a slew of links to variety of informative articles, or anything along those lines... please leave. Quietly. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether that means closing this entry without comment or unsubscribing entirely.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Brainstorming ideas
Would it work better for you if you could recruit some people to read ideas you see as suggestions, and let them "champion" them for you? This would give you the opportunity to provide your input, but provide a sort of shielding layer from the reactions.
Maybe you could participate more in fanfic communities? I know you have the ability to write clearly, and a measure of creativity.
From:
Re: Brainstorming ideas
The problem is not that I'm looking to put out any specific messages. It's more of a general feeling of "I can't post about that here" which comes up now and again when my thoughts turn to certain subjects. Lingering resentments, fear, shame, anger, and, more to the point... the feeling that I simply don't belong. My POV doesn't mesh.
I don't need champions. I don't want to hide behind anyone. I'm certainly in no condition to go fighting/campaigning.
I just... need to find a place where I belong. People I can talk to. People who understand. People I can have fun with, without always having to twitch away and feel like I'll be branded a racist because I'm willing to take a different view.
I don't know.
As for fic... I was part of a fandom once. Wrote a lot of fic. It was fun. I even did some vidding (though the site that hosted them has since been shut down). It was a pretty cool fandom, too. Met a lot of good friends there. But... I lost interest. And haven't felt any desire to join a new fandom.
As for writing... my ability to write, to create new stories, was one of the first things that went with the Fibro Fog. Higher cognitive function just isn't accessible anymore. I haven't written a decent story in years.
Thanks, though. For the compliments, for the advice, for the thoughts, for the support, and for listening.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Heh, funny thing is that one of my first reactions was to say, "hey, maybe I should get together with those other people, start a group..." Only to realize a moment later how painfully ironic that would be.
From:
no subject
i also have spells where i can't handle criticism. i have a core gruop fo friends i've known for many years who are on my "safe list" (that's what the filter is called). the people on it know me well and know where i'm coming from, and when i post with that filter i note i'm using that filter. i've only had one person ever ignore that boundary, in ~10 years. would a filter here and/or on lj help you?
and there have been times where that's the only filter i've posted on for *months*, during heavy duty illness or flashback periods. it works for me.
re cutting ties: if the tie is hurting you, imo it's a good idea to either cut it or back away from it for a while. don't have that person onthe filter you use. don't read them for a while if it hurts you to read what they're writing. if they're close enough for you to tell them, you can, but it's not a requirement. what i've done before when i need to cut back my friendslist is post "i'm not doing well health wise and need to cut my friendslist back to meat life and long-term friends." that way it's non-specific and non-hurtful to people. a few ppl have gotten upset but most wish me well, and sometimes we've reconnected later.
(i found the incident with the notes fascinating by how different the responses were, and it took me a while to realise it made sense if the groups were lj="ppl who know me and are responding based on the idea of me giving them a note" while dw="ppl who don't know me, mostly have a background in activism wrt violence towards women, and are responding based on the idea of a strange man approaching them and giving them a note." )
From:
no subject
You've said it gently and subtly, though, and I appreciate that.
Don't think I need a filter, though. I mean, I've got friends on LJ. I was hoping to make friends here. I suppose I am. But I'm losing people. Finding places I just don't belong. And not finding anything new to replace it. Not really solidifying connections. And in no condition to pimp myself trying to find new ones. But yet I'm holding on by a thread, worn down and wrung out (I do have a filter for that, as mentioned in this journal's sticky post). I need connections. I just don't know where or how to find them.
As for the parenthetical at the end - yeah, I found that very interesting, too. And understood the difference. But it just kind of underlines the problem. I wanted to find friends here on DW, not fall in to a group of activists who don't know me. I thought, given time... but the more time that goes by, the less I feel like I belong.
From:
no subject
i also have several good friends from lj who are also here, and i enjoy volunteering with copy editing etc when i have the spare spoons, adn i enjoy the different food comms and reading syne and ig's fiction. it's nto all activism here (but depending on who you know, it may well feel like it!)
i like it over here. and i like seeing my lj friends (even though i hate the site), and i like seeing family and friends on facebook.
sometimes here i read my network page, and find interesting things. and other times it would take far too many spoons so i don't.
this is just me, but if you don't feel comfortable here, if it takes spoons you don't have, that's okay, even though it's also okay that ti's frustrating.
(if you decide not to stay here or not be active but would like to stay in touch, i have the smae name on lj, btw. and would enjoy staying in touch with you.)
From:
no subject
Not really sure what else to say right now. I don't have things figured out, and it's been a rough week.
Thanks, though, for the ideas and for wanting to stay in touch. :)
From:
no subject
What I wuld do is just open your mouth despite it all, maybe disable comments and invite people to PM you if they want to say someting. I know I find your entries fascinating and good to read.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I don't have any particularly useful ideas, but I like that you dare make a post like this. Hopefully only good things may come from it. Keep your journals, write in them what you want and the people who care about you will follow.
And here's an idea about reaching out: maybe try joining a new community? Livejournal or Dreamwidth, whatever works better for you. Something that looks like fun. Something you could follow when you feel like it, but that's not very demanding. Read posts, comment, maybe post something of your own. You might end up with a new friend or two. And if not, at least you'll have something pleasant to pass the time. :)
Take care! ♥ ♥ ♥
From:
no subject
Don't know what comm to look for or try, tho. There are a number I follow, but it's to get stuff to read, not to make friends...
I don't know.
But thanks.