I think this is so interesting... I've been thinking a lot about why people are so bad at handling criticism and take it so personally when people disagree with them...
Narcissism seems a factor, but also this thing where your public persona is supposed to represent who you are as a person... We can see this pretty clearly in all this virtue signalling that goes on online, wherein people advertise their political 'wokeness' as a means to communicate how goes and righteous and moral they are as people. So their political views are not just ideas, but reflective of who they are (which in today's online cultures seems to be either 'good' or 'bad'. Like, you can either have the right position or the wrong position, there is no nuance or room for middle ground or for exploring ideas without immediately adopting this supposedly 'right' position) as people.
It's as if they are all pretending to be above flaws and imperfect thoughts. What a stupid, boring lie. I guess that's why so many are afraid to change our minds and admit that maybe we were wrong in the past, or that we are now seeing things differently... It implies imperfection and weakness in a world where honestly and (actual) open mindedness are unacceptable, only righteousness.
"So, if somebody says something negatively about you or makes a criticism, there’s no distance to sort of play with that and just assume that this is the rough and tumble of social life. Everything is sort of taken personally and that kind of distance that you had between who you were in society and when you returned home—that they were two different people—is kind of lost. I’m not doing his arguments justice, but I think in that kind of phenomenon you can see the rise of notions of political correctness, which is, basically, 'My opinions and my ideas reflect something very intimately about who I am. And to challenge that is to challenge who I am and who I am at the core.' And that makes it very hard to accept any kind of criticism or any kind of other opinion, as opposed to the ideal of the city in the eighteenth century or even later as a melting pot of divergent opinions and ideas as a healthy thing—it became this thing that people with other ideas were sort of a danger, and they threatened my very narcissistic sense of identity."
"Children aren’t leading the charge in this field, and limitless gender fluidity isn’t an idea that springs unbidden from the minds of adolescents. These are post-modern gender concepts developed by academics and released into the infosphere where they can be absorbed by kids who are bored, troubled, or seeking new and creative ways to freak out their parents.
The boutique response to adolescent gender games is likely a small part of what the UCSF Child and Adolescent Gender Center does, but that they indulge them at all seems frivolous and unworthy of the children and adults who genuinely suffer. And as the long-term effects of such interventions are unclear, it also seems risky."
Many have assumed I was banned for violating Twitter’s new Terms of Service, which include rules against “misgendering” (referring to males as male and females as female, regardless of their transgender identity) and “deadnaming” (referencing a person’s name, despite the fact they now prefer to go by another name). But at the time I posted the tweet in question, not only had Twitter not informed their users of this change to their Terms of Service, but the individual in question was still using his male name, not only on Twitter, but on most of his other social media accounts (and continues to do so). The change to Twitter’s Terms of Service was made public, coincidentally (or not), the same day I was banned. Beyond the fact that correctly referencing a person’s sex is not harmful in any way whatsoever (in fact, incorrectly identifying a person’s sex would be incredibly dangerous, if a health practitioner were to do so, for example), but this person does not even “identify” as female on Twitter.
The true reason for my Twitter ban was revealed earlier this month, by the individual responsible, who bragged, at a Township of Langley Council meeting, “I personally got her Twitter account suspended.”
I think this is so interesting... I've been thinking a lot about why people are so bad at handling criticism and take it so personally when people disagree with them...
Narcissism seems a factor, but also this thing where your public persona is supposed to represent who you are as a person... We can see this pretty clearly in all this virtue signalling that goes on online, wherein people advertise their political 'wokeness' as a means to communicate how goes and righteous and moral they are as people. So their political views are not just ideas, but reflective of who they are (which in today's online cultures seems to be either 'good' or 'bad'. Like, you can either have the right position or the wrong position, there is no nuance or room for middle ground or for exploring ideas without immediately adopting this supposedly 'right' position) as people.
It's as if they are all pretending to be above flaws and imperfect thoughts. What a stupid, boring lie. I guess that's why so many are afraid to change our minds and admit that maybe we were wrong in the past, or that we are now seeing things differently... It implies imperfection and weakness in a world where honestly and (actual) open mindedness are unacceptable, only righteousness.
"So, if somebody says something negatively about you or makes a criticism, there’s no distance to sort of play with that and just assume that this is the rough and tumble of social life. Everything is sort of taken personally and that kind of distance that you had between who you were in society and when you returned home—that they were two different people—is kind of lost. I’m not doing his arguments justice, but I think in that kind of phenomenon you can see the rise of notions of political correctness, which is, basically, 'My opinions and my ideas reflect something very intimately about who I am. And to challenge that is to challenge who I am and who I am at the core.' And that makes it very hard to accept any kind of criticism or any kind of other opinion, as opposed to the ideal of the city in the eighteenth century or even later as a melting pot of divergent opinions and ideas as a healthy thing—it became this thing that people with other ideas were sort of a danger, and they threatened my very narcissistic sense of identity."
"Children aren’t leading the charge in this field, and limitless gender fluidity isn’t an idea that springs unbidden from the minds of adolescents. These are post-modern gender concepts developed by academics and released into the infosphere where they can be absorbed by kids who are bored, troubled, or seeking new and creative ways to freak out their parents.
The boutique response to adolescent gender games is likely a small part of what the UCSF Child and Adolescent Gender Center does, but that they indulge them at all seems frivolous and unworthy of the children and adults who genuinely suffer. And as the long-term effects of such interventions are unclear, it also seems risky."
Many have assumed I was banned for violating Twitter’s new Terms of Service, which include rules against “misgendering” (referring to males as male and females as female, regardless of their transgender identity) and “deadnaming” (referencing a person’s name, despite the fact they now prefer to go by another name). But at the time I posted the tweet in question, not only had Twitter not informed their users of this change to their Terms of Service, but the individual in question was still using his male name, not only on Twitter, but on most of his other social media accounts (and continues to do so). The change to Twitter’s Terms of Service was made public, coincidentally (or not), the same day I was banned. Beyond the fact that correctly referencing a person’s sex is not harmful in any way whatsoever (in fact, incorrectly identifying a person’s sex would be incredibly dangerous, if a health practitioner were to do so, for example), but this person does not even “identify” as female on Twitter.
The true reason for my Twitter ban was revealed earlier this month, by the individual responsible, who bragged, at a Township of Langley Council meeting, “I personally got her Twitter account suspended.”
