Why? Because I have an interest in demonstrating to my readers how “nice” people are often the most insulting, patronizing jerks right out of the gate. Many of you miss this entirely because you fall for it. You fall for the faux-civil language. You say to yourselves, “Well, since he didn’t swear directly at the host, and since he put it in the form of what civil language sounds like, he’s being respectful.”
In this internet-driven culture, someone really needs to write a guide for how people can overcome the self-delusion that makes them think they really know or understand the content creators they're in parasocial relationships with. It's a type of delusion that's very easy to fall into, but the intensity with which people cling to it, combined with confirmation bias, makes people just absolutely convinced they know things *with certainty* about people they don't even know. I suppose, like all delusions, they'd have to *want* to overcome them, though. Which people rarely do.
Perhaps so many people lack physical friends, they come to believe their cyber “friends” are known to them in the same way a physical friend would be. They could not be more wrong.
I have been extremely blessed to become real-life friends with people I've met online on multiple occasions, including Josh. And you are exactly right. A parasocial relationship is like watching a highlight film. An in-person relationship is playing in the game, on the same team. Same subject, entirely different experiences, with different benefits, risks, dangers, blessings.
There is something deeply, arrogantly disingenuous about persisting with the "more flies with honey than vinegar" type language when the other side is, and has been for ages, slinging poop at us.
Last week, my CEO of the startup I work at said my tone recently had been too harsh. So he met me for drinks after work to talk through my concerns and we realized we mostly agree on stuff and he asked me to be more involved in planning things.
The tone is reason enough to be annoyed by Mr. Sherry to be sure, but he's also flatly, factually wrong. "Disagreement in the absence of contempt is truly possible." That is true about things without immediate moral salience. It is not true about immediate, ongoing horrors involving immense harm and suffering that are happening *right now*. The nature of these battles is such that if he experiences no contempt, the side of evil has already won. Gender ideology turns children into beings who are assigned moral autonomy over their bodies and we are simply quibbling about details--lifelong sterilization today, sexual contact with adults tomorrow. The absence of active, consciously experienced contempt for this ideology is in itself a moral wrong.
He is also wrong about the meaning of "loving one's enemies." Enabling an evasion of responsibility is not loving. Fostering dependence is not loving. It doesn't matter how right the other party involved thinks they are, either. If I were at your house and you experienced a psychotic break in which you were convinced that nuclear holocaust would result at once unless you burned your own house down, the most loving thing I could do would be to stop you from harming yourself and your future security, even if I had to enlist another male to physically tackle you. It is not at all hard to name myriad scenarios where aggressively and even painfully stopping someone from doing massive harm, when harm is what they think they must do, is what love *requires*.
If even one person in his life truly loved Dylan Mulvaney, we would likely have never heard of him.
Could it be truthful to ask if you’re spiraling, Josh? These past two posts suggest that your anger is getting the better of you. Eject me if you must, but that’s how it feels to me, and has felt to me, since you left your job.
So he insults you by questioning whether you're capable of "mental gymnastics" re:disagreement without contempt; and then displays "his" moral superiority by referencing being able to love one's enemies.
That's morally superior alright - and arrogant; insulting is perfectly fine, as long as you don't do it contemptuously I suppose. He is actually engaging in “subtle” contempt by taking the higher moral ground. He sets himself up as “above” you and Matt – more “adult,” more “mature,” and just plain better.
What a swamp creature. He should probably take the log out of his own eye.
Contempt is warranted in many circumstances, like when someone is an abusive, arrogant, unrepentant asshole.
That guy sounds like every supercilious faux empathetic teacher or administrator I had to suffer through in Quaker school for 12 years. Screw them and their Insufferable holier than thou arrogance.
I just became a paid subscriber for exactly this kind of fearlessness. THANK YOU. During the Covid mandates, on children in particular, a lot of us moms asked where in the hell the men were. Most of them were being “nice guys” worried about their standing in the community and/or a paycheck. I am exhausted with the excuses people use in an effort to go along and get along. Appreciate your voice.
This is not a tea party, it’s war. We don’t need Emily Post policing everyone’s tone, we need warriors, brave souls risking everything. Bless you, Josh, and thank you.
I am particularly tired of people mashing together the idea of being mild-tempered or mannerly with being righteous or loving. It is not the same thing and is often instead a camouflage for cowardice that allows much evil to go unchecked. The unflinchingly direct are like a rainstorm in the desert. Bring it.
"Loving one's enemies is too high a calling I guess." – this kind of passive-aggression drives. Me. Nuts. Morally speaking, in my opinion: no different from spitting on or punching someone. It doesn't mean you respond by punching or spitting, of course. But a person like this is not your friend, his comments are not well intentioned, and you are in no way, shape, form, or fashion required to be "nice" to him.
Josh, I've just got back from rescuing kittens from burning buildings, and I should be going to feed the homeless - sorry, the housing disadvantaged - but I care about you, a total stranger, so deeply, so truly, that I had to comment.
Now that you know how good I am, let me patronise you. I'd like to project my own weakness onto you. I only do this because I care (I'm a good person). Maybe later we could sing kumbayah together, once I've finished telling more interesting and successful strangers how important it is to self-neuter.
I’m baffled at all the individuals seemingly wanting to “win over” with kindness the same group wanting to normalize “minor attracted people” or fill school libraries with straight up porn like Gender Queer. To kind of paraphrase Matt Walsh in his extremely articulate rebuttal to all the blowback he has received - it’s not that I’m angry, it’s why are you NOT angry? I wonder if there is a certain amount of people for which there simply is no line in the sand. Those people are why we find ourselves in this mess to begin with. And they are almost worse than the hardcore ideologues, because they’d simply rather not offend, so continue allowing atrocities to happen to the most vulnerable among us - our children. Let’s call that what it is...cowardice.
Listen up readers:
I am not losing my mind.
I am not out of control.
I do not have inappropriate levels of anger.
Your personal comfort level with anger (especially male anger) is not synonymous with what is "appropriate" for me to feel or express.
I apologize for nothing, I will not dial my tone down even one notch.
But I will ban the next person who dares to speculate on my mental health because they're too afraid of plain spoken and angry men.
Your subscription does not buy you the right to engage with me in public that way.
In this internet-driven culture, someone really needs to write a guide for how people can overcome the self-delusion that makes them think they really know or understand the content creators they're in parasocial relationships with. It's a type of delusion that's very easy to fall into, but the intensity with which people cling to it, combined with confirmation bias, makes people just absolutely convinced they know things *with certainty* about people they don't even know. I suppose, like all delusions, they'd have to *want* to overcome them, though. Which people rarely do.
Perhaps so many people lack physical friends, they come to believe their cyber “friends” are known to them in the same way a physical friend would be. They could not be more wrong.
I have been extremely blessed to become real-life friends with people I've met online on multiple occasions, including Josh. And you are exactly right. A parasocial relationship is like watching a highlight film. An in-person relationship is playing in the game, on the same team. Same subject, entirely different experiences, with different benefits, risks, dangers, blessings.
There is something deeply, arrogantly disingenuous about persisting with the "more flies with honey than vinegar" type language when the other side is, and has been for ages, slinging poop at us.
There are many names for it. Passive aggression. Manipulation. Gaslighting.
Last week, my CEO of the startup I work at said my tone recently had been too harsh. So he met me for drinks after work to talk through my concerns and we realized we mostly agree on stuff and he asked me to be more involved in planning things.
Being a dick gets results.
The tone is reason enough to be annoyed by Mr. Sherry to be sure, but he's also flatly, factually wrong. "Disagreement in the absence of contempt is truly possible." That is true about things without immediate moral salience. It is not true about immediate, ongoing horrors involving immense harm and suffering that are happening *right now*. The nature of these battles is such that if he experiences no contempt, the side of evil has already won. Gender ideology turns children into beings who are assigned moral autonomy over their bodies and we are simply quibbling about details--lifelong sterilization today, sexual contact with adults tomorrow. The absence of active, consciously experienced contempt for this ideology is in itself a moral wrong.
He is also wrong about the meaning of "loving one's enemies." Enabling an evasion of responsibility is not loving. Fostering dependence is not loving. It doesn't matter how right the other party involved thinks they are, either. If I were at your house and you experienced a psychotic break in which you were convinced that nuclear holocaust would result at once unless you burned your own house down, the most loving thing I could do would be to stop you from harming yourself and your future security, even if I had to enlist another male to physically tackle you. It is not at all hard to name myriad scenarios where aggressively and even painfully stopping someone from doing massive harm, when harm is what they think they must do, is what love *requires*.
If even one person in his life truly loved Dylan Mulvaney, we would likely have never heard of him.
I love this comment. Excellent.
Could it be truthful to ask if you’re spiraling, Josh? These past two posts suggest that your anger is getting the better of you. Eject me if you must, but that’s how it feels to me, and has felt to me, since you left your job.
No. I am not spiraling.
Read and stay if you like, or don't.
Do not post something like this again. It's a boundary violation. You are not entitled to ask me questions like this in public on my blog.
My ick factor just got lit up by this. What a doozy of an inappropriate way to communicate.
So he insults you by questioning whether you're capable of "mental gymnastics" re:disagreement without contempt; and then displays "his" moral superiority by referencing being able to love one's enemies.
That's morally superior alright - and arrogant; insulting is perfectly fine, as long as you don't do it contemptuously I suppose. He is actually engaging in “subtle” contempt by taking the higher moral ground. He sets himself up as “above” you and Matt – more “adult,” more “mature,” and just plain better.
What a swamp creature. He should probably take the log out of his own eye.
Contempt is warranted in many circumstances, like when someone is an abusive, arrogant, unrepentant asshole.
That guy sounds like every supercilious faux empathetic teacher or administrator I had to suffer through in Quaker school for 12 years. Screw them and their Insufferable holier than thou arrogance.
I would like to add the word "sanctimonious" to your accurate and beautifully descriptive comment.
Please do.
I just became a paid subscriber for exactly this kind of fearlessness. THANK YOU. During the Covid mandates, on children in particular, a lot of us moms asked where in the hell the men were. Most of them were being “nice guys” worried about their standing in the community and/or a paycheck. I am exhausted with the excuses people use in an effort to go along and get along. Appreciate your voice.
Thank you Sally!
Time for the #ittakesallofus to come back! The mental illness that is on display is breathtaking. 😅
And poor manners
This is “Holier than thou” social snottiness; how to address it in one’s life is a topic I’d like to hear Josh continue to address.
I’m not into cults, not even yours. Good luck.
Good riddance.
You?
I know you.
You've spent the last 15 years haunting the blogs of smart women who write well. To taunt, to neg.
And you think you're going to do it here?
Forget it. You're banned.
This is not a tea party, it’s war. We don’t need Emily Post policing everyone’s tone, we need warriors, brave souls risking everything. Bless you, Josh, and thank you.
I am particularly tired of people mashing together the idea of being mild-tempered or mannerly with being righteous or loving. It is not the same thing and is often instead a camouflage for cowardice that allows much evil to go unchecked. The unflinchingly direct are like a rainstorm in the desert. Bring it.
"Loving one's enemies is too high a calling I guess." – this kind of passive-aggression drives. Me. Nuts. Morally speaking, in my opinion: no different from spitting on or punching someone. It doesn't mean you respond by punching or spitting, of course. But a person like this is not your friend, his comments are not well intentioned, and you are in no way, shape, form, or fashion required to be "nice" to him.
Civil discourse is a privilege, not a right.
Josh, I've just got back from rescuing kittens from burning buildings, and I should be going to feed the homeless - sorry, the housing disadvantaged - but I care about you, a total stranger, so deeply, so truly, that I had to comment.
Now that you know how good I am, let me patronise you. I'd like to project my own weakness onto you. I only do this because I care (I'm a good person). Maybe later we could sing kumbayah together, once I've finished telling more interesting and successful strangers how important it is to self-neuter.
Peace and quinoa, Georgia.
I’m baffled at all the individuals seemingly wanting to “win over” with kindness the same group wanting to normalize “minor attracted people” or fill school libraries with straight up porn like Gender Queer. To kind of paraphrase Matt Walsh in his extremely articulate rebuttal to all the blowback he has received - it’s not that I’m angry, it’s why are you NOT angry? I wonder if there is a certain amount of people for which there simply is no line in the sand. Those people are why we find ourselves in this mess to begin with. And they are almost worse than the hardcore ideologues, because they’d simply rather not offend, so continue allowing atrocities to happen to the most vulnerable among us - our children. Let’s call that what it is...cowardice.