on trolls exercising free speech at psychology today

I’m surprised that it’s taken me so long to start having problems with the comment moderators at Psychology Today. I go there and argue with racists and autism haters all the time, and I don’t try to be nice about it. Yesterday morning, I got myself banned for the first time, but it looks like the bans are blog-specific. This is the page that did it. I get 403 Forbidden even trying to view it. LOL.

I’d tried to post a rant blaming capitalism and modern parenting, offended that they were calling the social retardation caused by screens “autism” and repeating the “autism epidemic” myth. People who can’t understand how changing diagnostic criteria affects estimates of prevalence really shouldn’t be writing about psychology like they know anything. It’s the kind of mistake that comes from never taking undergrad research methods and hearing that psychology studies constructs. Yes, real psychologists take it for granted that there’s no such thing as “attention” or “memory,” that we measure something else and make inferences. Autism is something inferred from external behavior, so changing what counts as autism changes how many autistic people there are when you count them. “You can’t talk” was pretty strict before. This is not complicated. I became autistic overnight when the definition changed. That’s how it works.

This is the same as people not understanding that there didn’t used to be “black people” or “homosexuals,” either.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure I got auto-banned for writing “the autism literature is full of shit.” It’s quite possible I’d just happened to avoid profanity before, or that I hadn’t shit on an especially prudish person before.

I personally attack people’s character on there all the time, based on how people talk to me.

I’m a “social justice warrior,” but I like the way Malcolm X talked a lot more than I like the way MLK talked. I read about internationalist class struggle on CounterPunch, not some weak Bernie Sanders nonsense. The difference between Taoist and anarchist politics is a planned blog post of the future. My point is that I argue with the fascists, but not from the position they’re expecting.

The subject of today’s post is the saga of trying to troll the blog of Jane Timmons-Mitchell, and what it tells us about the universe. It all begins here. She was like, “Blah blah something something,” and something else caught my attention: Uncle Tom, in the flesh!

Unfortunately, the original post of “Black Proud Conservative” is lost, but they basically came to cry about being called Uncle Tom by “left wing bigots.” This is what I said in response:

Question for you from a black person who’s left of “progressive”: do you dispute the existence of Uncle Toms? What would Uncle Tom  behavior look like to you?

I was being nice and shit!

This morning I got an email notification that they’d written a long response, perfect for deconstruction. Here it is:

Why is that an issue for you? [because you invited the question by saying you’d be called that]

Do you assume that when White and people of Color agree, the POC are acquiescing to the Whites?

Minds cannot be changed by dividing. I know from experience that when you stand firm on your beliefs, but show respect and willingness to  engage with racists, their bigotry softens.

You have to leave your safe space and talk to people, not point your finger and admonish, but engage and have the presence to stay on a  higher level.

But, that takes bravery. I am so disappointed in these SWJ’s — they prefer to hit and run, rather than stand a have a civilized debate — they  are cowards.

When you venture into the heart of the enemy, you’ll find that they were not quite the enemy you thought they were.

Believe it or not, many people want to be rescued from their racism. But, if no one comes to their aid and offers a new perspective–a way  out if you will, then they will stay on their angry island and no one wins.

You will be very surprised to find that you have much in common with people you perceive to be your enemy.

And when they see that you practice intrinsic respect and that you are no so different, it softens their hearts…and yours as well.

Uncle Tom is not your problem — anger divides you from a rich life.

I will get to what I would have said, but first I had to deal with the whole series of posts getting deleted, leaving only this comment behind:

Trans-gender day camp for children as young as 4.

What kind of prediction, if you care to, would you make as to how many of these children would turn out to be “trans-gender”?

Fascinating and insightful contribution, no? This is the kind of question asked by someone who secretly masturbates to transgender porn and has a complex over it.

I wrote Jane Timmons-Mitchell:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/children-will-listen/201708/youve-got-be-carefully-taught

I was trying to have a dialogue with someone in the comments on this thread, and someone decided that’s not allowed. Why?

I’m black, ultra-left, and autistic. I had a “third culture kid” upbringing and blog about race issues. I have my own PhD in psychology.

I asked “Black Proud Conservative” a question, he or she replied, and the whole conversation was deleted in the time it took for me to get an email notification on my phone and turn on my computer to write back. WTF?

What is so threatening about two black people having a conversation in a comment thread about diversity, that you have to censor it? Why is Psychology Today more offended than the person who took the time to respond to the question thoughtfully?

Elsewhere on the site, racists are allowed to talk to me like this:

“Or continue to be a little ass cream troll cum bucket.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/acquired-spontaneity/201708/why-patriarchy-is-not-about-men

I’m all grown up now and won’t die of that, so why is what “Black Proud Conservative” had to say so much worse? Probably because Psychology Today likes giving a platform to conservative bloggers to write racist stuff: Jeese Marczyk, Lee Jussim, etc. I get trolled by racists every time I say anything on the site. Every other day someone posts something new stigmatizing autism.

Two black people who refuse to be Democrats actually talking across a political divide? Beyond the pale!

So now I’ll respond to Black Proud Conservative here, where fewer people will see it.

Why is that an issue for you?

Do you assume that when White and people of Color agree, the POC are
acquiescing to the Whites?

Someone who similar debate tactics, but for evil and falsehood.

I asked a pointed but open-ended question. How much racism is this black person willing to deny to keep their white friends? They didn’t answer my question, they questioned my question. Changed the topic to assumptions about my assumptions.

Interesting that he capitalized “White” but not “people”, isn’t it?

Next they try to steal the moral high ground:

Minds cannot be changed by dividing. I know from experience that when you stand firm on your beliefs, but show respect and willingness to engage with racists, their bigotry softens.

You have to leave your safe space and talk to people, not point your finger and admonish, but engage and have the presence to stay on a  higher level.

But, that takes bravery. I am so disappointed in these SWJ’s — they prefer to hit and run, rather than stand a have a civilized debate — they are cowards.

When you venture into the heart of the enemy, you’ll find that they were not quite the enemy you thought they were.

This is where they say they’re going to repeat talking points on auto-pilot (lol echolalia). Obviously, I took time out of my regularly scheduled flame war to give this person a moment of consideration because they’re black. I’m writing this post at all because I wasn’t allowed to write back anything thoughtful, so Black Proud Conservative gets to leave the exchange feeling like he contained the threat of me. The absurdity is left to stand. He leaves feeling like he has a bigger dick, like the glory of his bully friends has rubbed off on him. They’re the real men! Liberal pansies! At the same time he’s the paragon of virtue and tolerance. LOL.

He’s admonishing me about admonishing people, when I asked an open-ended question.

I’m all for religious peace and stuff, but this makes me want to vomit:

Believe it or not, many people want to be rescued from their racism. But, if no one comes to their aid and offers a new perspective–a way out if you will, then they will stay on their angry island and no one wins.

You will be very surprised to find that you have much in common with people you perceive to be your enemy.

And when they see that you practice intrinsic respect and that you are no so different, it softens their hearts…and yours as well.

Uncle Tom is not your problem — anger divides you from a rich life.

Bullies say this kind of shit because it’s so aggravating. They’re picking out things that are important to your self-image, which is a tactic for trying to manipulate you. This is analogous to my ex-wife telling me that I was a controlling Neanderthal “trying to tell me who I can be friends with” when I said it would be impossible to honestly work on our relationship if she kept spending all her days off with the dude she was fucking and only seeing me when she was grouchy after work.

This person gets to feel like the savior of the white guys making fun of him behind his back. I’m sure that conservatives are very superficially nice to black people who try to hang out with them. They get a LOT of mileage out of pointing out their black friend who agrees with their racist stuff. It helps them deny their racism to themselves and others. It’s pretty sordid, overall.

American culture in general promotes a state of outrage, but obviously embrace their anger in a way that the SJWs they think they’re arguing with don’t.

Then there’s the jab implying that I don’t have a “rich life.” It’s true that I can be jealous of people who have it even easier, but there’s more peace and less anger in my life not having to compromise myself to hang out with bullies.

So it’s actually impossible to talk to Black Proud Conservative, because they’re talking to an imaginary “SJW” the white people told them about. I didn’t say, “It’s not OK for you to be conservative.” I said, “As a conservative black person, where do you see racism and do you see other black people cooperating with it?” THAT is too threatening.

The person said nothing positive about why black people should join Team Fascist.

I feel that I know very well how to communicate deeply with other people. What happens is that I try, and other people are unwilling nearly all of the time. Even seeing this ATTEMPT is too disruptive for someone at Psychology Today. It can’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny. They’re weak on this and they KNOW they’re weak on this. When they’re yowling is the time to deliver an even stronger blow in the next round, not ask if they’re OK. The defenses have to be crushed, not merely illustrated.

The problem is people mistrusting their own fighting instincts. The fascists are not trying to spare our fucking feelings! This means they can advance their agenda using more of the human emotional range.

It sucks that people have never met real soldiers, to see for themselves that in many cases they’re incapable of handling life without someone telling them what to do down to the details of personal grooming. They have more internal shame issues than most people, probably. If you don’t win, all you’ve done is riled them up.

On the same day, it’s in the news that Donald Trump needs to see a folder of fawning news clippings of himself twice a day AND that he’s saying random impulse shit threatening North Korea. These facts are related.

It’s a taijiquan principle that when the opponent resists, their body becomes stiff, and that makes them easily manipulated. The softness achieves hardness. It doesn’t just be wimpy and peaceful and afraid of bullies.

The idea is to defeat fascism. How is that supposed to happen if we help them pretend conservatism has intellectual foundations? It has intellectual activities, like economics or “evolutionary psychology”, but those are after-the-fact justifications. The argument with the fascist is not aimed at converting the fascist. It’s aimed at showing the audience how the fascist flails around and can’t or won’t have an honest conversation. Provoke their troll moves, then show the reader what they did there and why it reflects poorly on their motives.

Close