Someone was offended that Roger Ebert used the term "ping pong," and went off on him. Bad target. He did enough research to solve a century-old conundrum, and reported it interestingly: THE PING OF PONG: MYSTERY SOLVED
Someone went off on me as though that were the main question (which it wasn't) or the topic of the group (which it wasn't) and forcefully recommended medical attention and therapies (to a family that couldn't afford a house).
When I shushed it in my own forum, people went elsewhere to badmouth me, but I only heard about it at a distance, which is fine.
In a Bible Belt, Bible-believing house, owned by a great grandmother, lived in by desperate younger relatives, the tentative thoughts of a nine year old about gender identity are not a good priority to have. I can't apologize for what I know about home ownership and southern Baptists (or their cousins in the Church of Christ / Nazarene / Bethel-and-what-all) and human nature. First priorities: food, shelter, physical safety.
Posted by someone on facebook in January 2017:
Just wanted to remind everyone that the anti-vaxx movement is ableism and a direct attack on autistic people. Y'all always seem quite happy to debunk their science and talk about herd immunity but somehow forget to mention that autistic kids aren't tragedies or burdens.So... if people condemn all beliefs and criticize vaccines AND the questioning of them, then they will NOT be ableist and won't be "directly attacking autistic people"?
Anti-vaxx is part of the cure rhetoric that leads to parents placing their children in abusive therapies and feeding them all sorts of strange things that aren't proven to do anything/not harm their child.
Remember that the core of the anti-vaxxer argument is that it's better your child acquire a potentially deadly illness than be autistic.
Please remember to condemn that belief too.
"Direct attack" is direct. Personal. One-on-one. An attack.
One's politics can't be a direct attack on a person or group. One's view of sciences, or hope for change, is directed at bad science.
If it is proven that the rise in autism (or the rise in claims of and the widening of the definition of autism) could have been avoided by not having required vaccines, then it shouldn't matter WHAT the effect was—autism, freckles, blindness—then the argument that the science and laws were bad should have nothing to do with later justifications and acceptance and glorification of the parents of children so affected. It's hard, but adding a layer of negative, defensive accusations doesn't make anybody better and doesn't make anything better.
This quotes David Brin, too: Addicted to Indignation?
Can a person be addicted to indignation? Self-righteousness? If so, can you mediate with the addict?
Commentary on Brin and another writer:
One of the books I recently read that got me thinking and thinking (and thinking) is Pathological Altruism. Two chapters particularly grabbed my attention and thought: "Self-Addiction and Self-Righteousness" by David Brin, and "Pathological Certitude" by Robert A. Burton.
Indignation is not a virtue. Be dignified. You cannot maintain your dignity and also embrace INdignity.
Posted by someone I know and like, who read that Girl Scouts would march in Trump's inaugural parade:
Do you have any affiliation with the Girl Scouts? If so, and even if not, please voice your outrage.First people would need to have outrage. And Facebook is a good place to stir that up. I think it's harmful to stir up outrage in and among parents of young children. It's okay for unschooled children to have a peaceful day even though there are others outraged elsewhere.
Outrage is not a virtue. Donald Duck should not be your role model.
We have to stay outraged for the next four years and resist the powerful urge to adapt to the new normal. But that doesn’t mean you have to live the next four years in a constant state of anxiety and anger. It means, when you do think about Trump and his minions, the appropriate feeling is outrage. But you can’t live like that all the time, and that means you have to spend a significant amount of time not thinking about Trump and all the work that has to be done. Do not get used to Trump — get away from him.The rest of the article is sensible and useful, but the idea that someone could "stay outraged" is a danger. The biochemistry of outrage can't last four years and shouldn't be stoked and maintained anyway.
Also, it begins with a big, harmful "have to."
"We have to stay outraged" is wrong. And four years? It would be healthier to calmly asssume that he won't last four years. (more on "outrage")