This is a good (though long) article about anger and how it can be harnessed both constructively and destructively. I think it tends just a little bit toward Both Siderism and its prescriptions are a little vague, but still a good read. The social science is really interesting:
There’s a lot of good stuff in that article!
The experiment with the conservative Israelis remind me of the incel that ran over people. He was laughed at, ridiculed, and went over the line. This makes others want to disassociate themselves from it. I thought that was very effective.
The conclusion I am confused about.
I’m not sure having half the country go full-retard* would work.
I get angry. Yeah, I read about the baby jails at the border and I got really angry. I feel discontent at “fat cats” and powerful interests that are given names Koch, Mercer, something for my discontent, because I feel more and more that the system is becoming more and more corrupt (or has it always been this way since my grandfather’s time and I just didn’t know?) I read the Miller apartheid state dreams. I picture him as this loser from high school who has been roleplaying this contrarian dick his short life. But I mean, am I not a little bit right, and more grounded in reality compared to those people? In short, is the article saying my anger may be unrighteous is my real concern.
Maybe the author would say 1) chill out 2) have realistic, practical goals. 3) I am not sure of this, what would the author of the article want me to change about my feelings for the other side?
I had no idea that scientific principles have been applied to anger
“The thing people forget is that the political left were really the ones who perfected the politics of anger,” Ganz told me. “It’s the progressives who figured out that by helping people see injustice, rather than just economics, we become strong.” Movements don’t emerge from small acrimonies. They require a sense that it isn’t just an individual who wronged us, but a system that must be reformed. “If you can make it a moral crusade, you can win,” Ganz said
Ironic that the use of anger has subsequently been abused by corporate America to further enrich themselves.
Corporatized outrage can be remarkably effective, but it’s fundamentally manipulative, and tends to further the interests of the already rich and powerful, often at the expense of the little guy. Rarely is it a force for social good. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the media industry. If the bill collectors figured out how to use interpersonal anger to their advantage, the cable-news business perfected the monetization of moral outrage.
Even though “those” people are the heroes in their own story and from their point of view are all on the side of ‘good’, it’s quite evident that they are wrong. Misogyny, white superiority, disdain for scientific facts et al are all objectively bad. The roots of their discontent might well be the same as ours - corrupt and failing institutions that benefit the elite few - but their conclusions on how and why that happened have been co-opted and manipulated by their chosen media. (I have no idea why they are susceptible to this aside from being predisposed to authoritarianism, maybe because of a religious upbringing.) So no, I don’t think your anger is unrighteous or misplaced, although it is nonetheless valuable to be introspective on one’s own motivations.
That’s a good question. In a way my own reaction to them mirrors their reaction to people like me: The other is subhuman, and that’s just a little scary honestly. More than likely there’s a spectrum of awfulness, with the Nazi sympathizers deserving of any and all scorn but with the majority worthy of empathy and understanding.
But that’s a bridge I just can’t cross. It’s reinforced whenever I (accidentally) read anything from them on various platforms and I realize that it’s because of their actions that we find ourselves in the predicament we are in.
My goal (lame as it is) is to ignore them and try not to let make my anger worse.
Nice article link, Matt. Thanks for that.
It reminds me a bit of a similarly applied personality type element in regards to how and who people vote for. We often say things like, “they have no compassion,” or, “they are lunatics,” or any number of other things regarding our own political opposites. And some of that is due to the fact that political platforms tend to draw people of the same like-minded specific traits within their personalities, chiefly: how they gather data on a decision choice and how they make the decision choice.
And of course, one way candidates can pull voters toward them is to key on those traits for certainly personalities.
One example is that many of us here lambaste Trump supporters for being idiots for not seeing the data in front of them. But what’s important of note is that Trump never ran on a fact based platform at all, and thus those drawn to him tend to not care about that anyway. It’s not that they are stupid, it is that they don’t make decisions factually. They in many cases may certainly know something factual, but they don’t care, that isn’t how they make their choice anyway. “I feel he would make a good President.” “He seems like someone who will change things.”
A federal judge quotes Dr. Seuss in a ruling. :)
“We trust the United States Forest Service to ‘speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues,’” the judges wrote, quoting Dr. Seuss’s 1971 book The Lorax. “A thorough review of the record leads to the necessary conclusion that the Forest Service abdicated its responsibility to preserve national forest resources.”
On more amusing news, DNDmocracy lives in California! Die Roll decides county-level election.
There’s 51 votes to 51 votes so they roll a d20 to decide winner.
Unexpectedly, Alice Walker turns out to be a bit of a hateful old crank.
There was some really deep-end anti-semitic stuff in the poem the article linked to (towards the end, the beginning is more generic pro-Palestine stuff). Yikes. That crazy keeps coming back around.
God damn. Never have heroes.
Toni Morrison is a much better writer anyway.
This article resonates with me. My path from conservative evangelical to liberal atheist is a bit different than hers (notably because she’s still Christian), but I think this kind of transition is increasingly common. It gives me hope.
That was a pretty fantastic article. My biggest takeaway is for that woman, the change came primarily from within rather than from without, although simple exposure to other points of view also seemed to facilitate the change.
As an aside, the idea that it would be beneficial for pretty much every Christian to actually read the entire Bible, at least once in their life, cover to cover, is an idea I strongly endorse. So much of contemporary Christianity is mediated by churches, websites, publications, etc., that going to the source can be eye opening.
I’m not even a Christian, and I’ve read both the OT and the NT. I’m always surprised to hear from Christians who haven’t. Especially Protestants, because that was the whole point, that people should read it themselves rather than listen to what what the priests say about it.
I tried, but the beginning is just lists.
Also, you could make the argument that the bible isn’t something you read casual, but have to study. Everything in it is colored by it’s period of time and context. Jesus had to walk a very fine line, not pissing off the Romans or the Jews (some of whom were looking for a Messiah that would lead them to war) and everyone else.
That’s why a lot of the better protestant sermons go into the woods about what the passages mean, both at the time it took place, the time it was written and how it impacts our lives today.
As an example Turning the other check doesn’t just mean withholding from retaliation, and non violent, but as wikipedia explains:
Nonviolent resistance interpretation[edit]
The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination , interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time.[2]
At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking with the back of the hand a person, who was deemed to be of a lower socioeconomic class, was used as a means to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.
Wink continues with an interpretation of handing over one’s cloak in addition to one’s tunic. The debtor has given the shirt off his back, a situation forbidden by Hebrew law as stated in Deuteronomy (24:10–13). By giving the lender the cloak as well, the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Wink notes, that public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, and not just the naked, as seen in Noah’s case (Genesis 9:20–23).
Wink interprets the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.[3] In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law, as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.[4]
You could make an argument that a lot of passages have multiple means and require study to intepret. And even than, you could be wrong.
Now, some people are better at self study, but personally, I prefer going to class and taking notes.
Half the threads are broken and can’t receive new posts, so this is going here.
What a weird tweet - she’s clearly linking an article from Nov 2017. But seems to be very much unaware of McCain’s recent scheduling issues.
In my mind I see her shouting at a gravestone
“Answer the question Senator! Answer the question!!” :)
Ok turns out she is guilty of poor grammar not amazing stupidity.
https://twitter.com/KatrinaPierson/status/1075921203884371968
Why not both?
Yeah, no. Her tweet is stupid.