You Can't Compromise With Fear

Normally, I like Jim Wright. But as I've learned over the years, even he suffers from the same problem that every white guy does: since he's not really going to lose much in Trump's America, he feels he has the authority to tell progressives how to win.

His entire post, linked above, is the ramblings of a guy so steeped in his own privilege he's turned the water into milk.

The lede is the only good part of it. But then he starts screaming at fellow liberals to "turn the red sea purple" by "compromising with fear." I very calmly challenged him on Twitter earlier today to explain just how on earth we're supposed to do that, and got blocked for my trouble.

Because, as I finally got him to admit in that thread, you can't compromise with fear.

Not the kind of fear we're dealing with, at any rate. When a child comes to you in the middle of the night scared of monsters under his bed? Your natural instinct is to lift the bedskirt and show him there are no monsters. Maybe check the closet with a flashlight just to go the extra mile. But then the child turns to you and says "no, there really are monsters, they're just invisible so of course you can't see them!" At that point, the child's fear can no longer be compromised with, because he's going to make up reasons to stay afraid.

Trump voters are that child. The monsters under their bed are literally everyone and everything else.

In his post, Jim Wright suggests reaching out to these fearful people instead of dismissing them, by going to churches and assuring them they won't have to marry a gay couple in their house of worship.

I literally laughed out loud reading that, because:

1) why the holy fuck would they believe a word "Crooked Hillary" says? These are the same people chanting "lock her up!"

2) to say that their fear is having to marry a gay couple in their church is to treat it with far more rationality and credibility than it deserves. They don't actually give a shit about that. They don't want gay couples getting married, period. Not in their church, not in any church, not in their courthouses, not in their city, not in their state, not in their country.

The part Mr. Wright doesn't seem to grasp is that compromising with them in any way is compromising with hatred. This is the same guy who was literally targeted by Neo-Nazis, but can't seem to understand that their fear is based on hatred. It's built directly on top of it. Hatred is the foundation of everything conservatives do. They fear change because they hate having to deal with anything different than themselves.

As far as blaming liberals for not showing up at the polls? That is a valid point. At least for privileged white liberals like himself. The problem is that in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled on Shelby County v. Holder in a 5-4 decision that de-fanged the Voting Rights Act. Afterward, we saw a veritable orgy of voter suppression legislation passed.

In key states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan -- the states which cost Hillary the Electoral College -- many liberals, progressives and moderate conservatives who might've shown up to vote for Hillary were turned away and not permitted to cast a ballot. This is also not even counting the fact that communities of color (who vote largely Democrat) suffer disproportionately high rates of incarceration for non-violent felonies, which in turn means they are legally barred from voting.

Many liberals and progressives didn't show up for the 2014 midterms and 2016 election not because they didn't want to, but because they weren't allowed. Maybe smug white guys with the same privilege Jim Wright has decided to sit it out, largely because of their privilege. But to lump everyone else in with them is not just misleading, but insulting.

If you want to turn the red sea purple? Don't waste your time compromising with fear. Don't lose sleep trying to convince an irrationally scared child to go to bed when he's going to have far more reasons not to than you can keep up with.

You can't dismiss all of their concerns, because they do have valid ones. Poverty, drug use and failing health are just as bad in rural areas as they are in urban, but without any of the (still inadequate) support centers that city dwellers have (soup kitchens, shelters, sliding-scale clinics, etc.). But you can most definitely dismiss their fear, when that fear has equal parts jack and shit to do with their concerns.

You want to mitigate the damage Trump can do? You need to put the pressure on your Congresscritters. The people who put shit on Trump's desk to sign. They're already too scared to hold town halls. Don't let that stop you. Flood their inboxes. Flood their phones. Flood their mailbags. Hold protests. Stop traffic.

Make them so pants-shittingly terrified of losing their seats in 2018 that they'll have no choice but to break with the party line for self-preservation. Force them to be the check on Trump, with the threat that if they won't, you'll elect someone else who will.

Don't compromise with fear, and don't negotiate with terrorists. Resist.

To Err Is Human, To Forgive Is Dangerous If They're Not Sorry

When I was somewhere between kindergarten and third grade, I vaguely remember some incident where the teacher made a kid apologize to me. She then turned to me and said "now what do you say?" When I didn't answer she said "you're supposed to say 'you're forgiven.'"

I looked at her and said "But I don't forgive him, because he's not sorry. He's just saying it because you made him." I'll never forget the look on the teacher's face. It was like somebody had clued her in to a part of the human psyche she'd either forgotten about or had never acknowledged. The script she was used to wasn't being followed. The motions she'd been conditioned to go through were being rejected. All of a sudden, she kind of stood there and questioned reality as she knew it.

This was my first clue that forgiveness is as much a part of the bullshit children get spoonfed by their adult caretakers as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It's an arbitrary social convention that everyone follows, but they have no clue why. Other than "it's rude if you don't." It's a rehearsed interaction much the same way that pleasantries and small-talk are. Go off-script? Everyone loses their minds.

As children, we're conditioned that "you're forgiven" is simply the right response to "I'm sorry." And you say you're sorry when you do something bad so that the other person says "you're forgiven" and it's all forgotten about.

It's a ridiculous kindergarten ritual that kids are taught, and after a while the words themselves cease to have any meaning beyond "this is what you say because it's what you've been taught to say." Sorta like those Berlitz phrasebooks. Only you're learning how to phone it in instead of how to hail a taxi in Spanish.

As a result, I've found people by and large view forgiveness as something they're entitled to just for saying they're sorry. Hell, we even call these rehearsed phrases "magic words." You speak them and they get you what you want. So all too often, people will treat them as such. They won't apologize out of genuine remorse, but only because they're expected to. And in return, they expect to be forgiven.

People in these situations don't deserve your forgiveness.

Because what forgiveness is, is granting absolution. Declaring whatever incident that happened "water under the bridge" and returning your relationship to the status quo. This works when someone is genuinely remorseful, because they're going to remember what they did to upset you and not do it again, because they care about not hurting you. The status quo actually means something to them.

But when the person doesn't have genuine remorse? When they're not sorry for what they did, just that they got caught and you're angry? Forgiveness is worse than wasted on these people. Forgiving someone who isn't really sorry rewards their behavior. It effectively tells them they can hurt you, but as long as they say the magic words, there will be no lasting consequences.

That? Is a very dangerous thing to teach someone.

And this doesn't even get into situations of abuse. Far too many therapists and counselors see forgiveness as a necessary step in the healing process, and impart upon their patients the idea that they will never truly heal until they forgive their abuser (whether they get an apology or not). The thing is, not everyone can do this. Even the kindest and most empathic person has limits. And trying to force a person who has already suffered rank abuse over their limit -- trying force them through cajoling and coercion to forgive someone they simply can't -- is going to do nothing but re-traumatize them. They're going to see themselves as a failure all over again.

You are not, under any circumstances, obligated to forgive. Just like the opposite of hatred isn't love, but indifference, the opposite of a grudge is not forgiveness; it's release. You can leave the anger and the hurt behind by simply getting to the point of not giving a shit anymore.

The decision to forgive is as personal as the decision to have sex. If you do decide to do it, make sure it's because you want to and not because you feel it's expected. Going through the motions is just as bad in both scenarios.