I can understand why it became a really touchy situation, and I’m not faulting anyone for their reactions. Statements of fact can be tricky, because a lot of things are stated as fact that aren’t, and those “facts” are often used in oppressive ways. In this instance it was a pretty clear-cut fact, but the statements used (“not scientifically proven”) are often used to mean more beyond the literal meaning.
Sometimes distrust is so great that it doesn’t matter how obviously factual the statement is, or any other reality of the situation, because extreme distrust creates protective layers that are more concerned with self-preservation than reality-testing. Personally I know how it goes with my own areas of distrust—if I see someone who looks like my dad, it doesn’t matter that they aren’t my dad, I will still distrust them. I will still get panic attacks and have to flee. I won’t reach out to them to determine just how much they aren’t my dad. I won’t spend time around them to figure out that they won’t abuse me.
My brain stops caring about reality-testing and goes into self-preservation mode. All my assumptions remain solid and unchecked, because my brain believes if I try to test those assumptions, I will be put in danger. While it’s unfortunate that this can disrupt an opportunity to expand beyond one’s comfort zone and potentially find a new way of seeing the world, sometimes there’s nothing you can do about it. Self-preservation is key, and the brain doesn’t know the difference between a perceived threat and an actual threat, because the brain doesn’t have access to an objective reality. True objectivity is really hard to come by. All the brain knows is perception, and that’s all it can know.
That’s what I meant before when I said human beings aren’t rational creatures. So I see where the misunderstanding came from. It was just a bit frustrating is all.
“Sometimes distrust is so great that it doesn’t matter how obviously factual the statement is, or any other reality of the situation, because extreme distrust creates protective layers that are more concerned with self-preservation than reality-testing.”
Seriously? This was about people not being able to deal with factual statements because of their distrust and “protective layers” for “self preservation”?
I’m reblogging b/c I need for folks to see how this is being reframed as something that is wrong with the people who got into it with this person.
“So I see where the misunderstanding came from. It was just a bit frustrating is all.”
No you dont and this is patronizing as fuck.
So she still thinks that she’s the only educated one and is always right? I like how everyone in the thread understood her, even a white woman told her to shut up, and she’s the only one that doesn’t understand everyone else—-BUT SHE IS RIGHT. My god it must be amazing to be a white woman because they revel in their delusions and people actually coddle them into being this way.
I’m going to put this up here because this is white feminist thinking and we all need to see their warped inner workings.
Womanist for life.
This also seems fitting for this conversation.
