"You're Judgmental and Bad" – Response to Common Criticism

Sunday, January 10, 2016

Yesterday, I published and article called How NOT to Raise a Boy to Respect Women, Himself, or Anybody – The Nikkole Pauluns of the World. In it, I describe the reality of child abuse and it's consequences, and reflect on how it is often approved in our culture.

When I talk about these topics, I often get emails and comments from people who are grateful that I am able to describe and explain it clearly. But sometimes I receive responses from people who get triggered, confused, or internally challenged, where they get upset with me and try to express it by acting out on me instead of self-reflecting and trying to resolve the internal conflicts, confusion, and trauma they have.

Today, I once again woke up to one of those emails in regard to my yesterday's article. The person writes [sic]:
Hi Darius,

İ ve been following you for awhile now.

İ work on " identity oriented Psychotraumatology"
By "finding your true self thru the words of the sentence of your intention"
İe. Franz Ruppert's hypothesis, for over 4 years now.
May i dare advice you to read his latest English translation of
His book "Trauma, Fear & Love"...

Though i respect what you write, i find it judgemental, and
"Medically unethical" since open name and even recognizable photos of children are used.
Their Mum's posting them is one thing, a "Psychology professional's" personal
İnterpretation as  "gossip" comments rather than a "case study" is a completely different thing, in my belief.

İn my work we call it " perpetrator/victim dynamics"...i am not saying what this mother is doing is right but the way it is put below i find "unethical".

Warmest regards,
[Name], MD
Fascilitator
[Location]

I had some problems fully understanding what the person was talking about because of their English and writing style, and usually I don't respond to people who don't make a lot of sense. But as a person whose mother tongue is not English I can relate. So I tried to make the best of it, and decided to respond.

It's always interesting when people tell me that I am judgmental or that it's wrong to judge—with no problem of making judgements about me. That's a behavior of an inconsistent and confused person at best, and of a manipulative and harmful one at worst. So this person is upset that I described the reality about an abusive mother's behavior toward her child and about other forms of reckless and unprincipled behavior—he called me judgmental. Also, he called me unethical, because I used public photos of a celebrity and her family; photos that have been used in many other articles and were already seen by thousands if not millions of people.

So let's analyze the situation. First, this person is upset that I am judgmental. Okay. I am not sure what they mean exactly, but would I assume that it's something close to what most people who think like that see it as: implying that somebody may be doing wrong or incorrectly, or accurately describing such a reality—because it's "not nice." (And we all know that in this culture being "nice" at the expense of being in reality is preferable almost without exceptions.) What judging actually means is this: to form an opinion or make a conclusion. Guess what—you do it all the time. Everyone does. That's a part of conceptualizing reality. You observe and experience reality, and then you conceptualize and codify it by using language. The more accurate you are, the more in touch with reality you are. So I am not sure what the problem is here in the first place. A person is acting carelessly and destructively, to the degree where children are hurt, and I have written about it in a sound manner.

If the person means that "it's wrong to point out other people's dysfunction or shortcomings," then it also doesn't make much sense. Clearly this person—and everyone without exception who thinks this way—has no problem saying that I am being wrong. Usually they are dumbfounded when I point this contradiction out and either don't respond to it or try to deflect it. "Look, this person is hurting others by doing this, this, and this, and here's why it is harmful!" "No, don't say that! It's not nice!" Again, good job, hypocritical, unprincipled culture. Not nice compared to what? So a person acting destructively is not a problem—the problem is a person who sees and describes it. But let's make sure that we let them know that they are being 'not nice'—and by 'not nice' we mean immoral. Which brings me to the second grievance this person thinks they have with me.

What does one mean by the word "unethical"? Is it just one's personal preference for people to not talk about certain aspects of reality in a way that you for whatever reason don't see fit? Or is it objectively immoral, as in harming others? If the former, then my response is this: "Okay, I accept that you don't like it." If the latter, then my response is this: "So, you are saying that it is morally wrong, or at least morally more wrong, to point out immoral actions and other gruesome facts of reality versus actually committing those acts. It doesn't seem that your conceptualization of morality is correct."

If you look closely, this whole email is what in psychological terms could be described as a psychological projection, a massively common phenomenon whereby a person attributes to others something that is not actually there, or, usually, what applies to them and not the person they are attributing it to. In this case, they are calling me judgmental while being judgmental themselves, and calling me unethical while they themselves fail to provide people—some, of whom presumably are their clients—clarity, validation, and adequate help.

So I responded to the person's email by writing this:
Is very interesting to me when people say that somebody’s being judgmental. Of course I’m being judgmental. Everyone is judging and conceptualizing reality and their surroundings all the time. If by “judging” you mean talking “negatively” about somebody, then I don’t see a problem here either, as the problem is not a person who is describing somebody acting in a negative way, but the person who acts this way. If I stab or hit somebody, people have the right to judge my action as negative and talk about it (assuming it’s true), because I did harm them. Also, in your email to me, you are judgmental against me, as you have no problem saying that you think I am unethical. So if your approach is not to talk about people "negatively," then why are you telling me that you think I am acting wrong? Moreover, what is wrong with the perpetrator / victim dynamics? If one person hurts another, then one of them is a perpetrator and another one is a victim. Recognizing that is a sign of healthiness, while failure to recognize that is confusion or invalidation. So, again, if a parent rapes a child, recognizing that and putting the responsibility where it belongs is important, healthy, and healing, while staying silent or invalidating them is unhealthy, unrealistic, and unhelpful. So if that is what you are suggesting to me and to your clients, are you sure it’s not you who acts unethically?

Warmest regards,
Darius

I found that it's only fair to end my email with the same fake "warmest regards" they sent to me, as clearly their message is far from being with "warmest regards." Again, trying to be fakely respectful and overly polite, while actually feeling differently and acting in a hypocritical and manipulative manner is evident. And it's disgusting to me, actually. Congratulations on being part of the culture I talk about in my initial article. Congratulations on failing to be on the child's side and attacking those who are. Sadly, this is painfully common. We live in a culture where people—mainly children—are being abused, and many are on the side of the abuser or in the way.   

By the by, in the middle of me writing this article, I got a response to my reply. You know what it was? "Oh, I didn't see it this way; thanks for pointing out inconsistencies in my thinking"? "I am sorry for wrongly accusing you"? No, why would you expect that? It was the following:
You are too young, Darius.
Be well.
Primum nil nocere.
Bye,
[Name]

Okay. It is sunny today. And you are hairy. There, an argument is made. But seriously, a person's age, gender, skin color, social or economical status—anything like that—has nothing to do with the truth value of a statement. If you want to be technical, it is called argumentum ad hominem, whereby a person is avoiding making an argument or a counter argument and is addressing something irrelevant in another person's appearance or character thinking that it would somehow disprove what they said or add to the discussion. In simpler terms, one is being slimy, manipulative, and biased.

So, instead of responding to anything I said, this person decided to simply make an ad hominem statement and post a Latin phrase meaning first, do no harm. Based on my observation on studying of people's thinking and behavior, people like that are used to others' not challenging them on their bullshit. And in case they get challenged, they try to club you with ad hominems, non sequiturs, red herrings, threads, or manipulation. Notice that this person let me know that they are a MD and a facilitator, and that they are older than me. As if it would mean anything to me in the context of their wisdom and skill regarding topics at hand. I've seen and interacted with "professionals" who are completely incompetent, and I've seen and interacted with people who don't meet our culture's standards of being respectful, wise, and competent, yet they are. I also have received praise, support, hatemail, and destructive criticism from both people who have "no credentials" and from medical professionals. These things simply don't factor much in my estimation of people, as I strive to estimate—judge, if you will—people as realistically as possible, that is to estimate them as they are, not as they perceive themselves or as are perceived by others.

I also find it interesting that this passive-aggressive reply contains a "first, do no harm" at the end of it. If only they applied the same principles to themselves that they apply to others—but that would require consistency and actually being consistently respectful versus being compliant, hypocritical, and following the cultural norms, expectations, and mass madness.

So, my fellow reader, you are doing just fine. Continue in the footsteps of our culture. Don't notice reality. Don't try to make sense of it. Don't help others do the same. Definitely don't talk about social dysfunction. Don't judge (except when you do). Go to school (or, to debt, both financially and intellectually) to get your piece of paper, become old, rich, and famous—anything so that people like us would take you seriously. By no means show who you actually are. Do what others expect from you in being nice and obedient. Never take any chances. Fulfill your status quo. Obey authority. Fight the injustice and help others by invalidating the hurt and mistreated. And one day YOU, too, can become a truly successful, virtuous, and upstanding member of our thriving society.

Stay the course.

Darius

-----
If you found this or other articles valuable, please share it with others who may find it valuable. Also, consider supporting my work by donating. Any and all support is highly valued! 

You Might Also Like

2 comments

  1. You nailed it, gave him the right diagnosis. Darius you are legend. Thanks for this post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good post. When someone says 'don't be judgmental' they make a judgment. Their judgment is 'judging is bad', which is hypocritical. They also imply that the person who you criticized can make all the judgments they want, but you can't. It is an attempt to censor you using a false morality, a guilt trip, implying that you are not good for making a judgment. Jesus's slave morality includes the same thing 'judge not, lest you be judged'.

    ReplyDelete