You’ve put in line about how you have empathy for people with trauma but your piece still reeks of victim blaming, ableism, and insensitivity. You have no idea what trauma is and what it is to live with it—that’s quite evident. Any word or idea can be weaponised. That doesn’t give you the license to lecture people living with trauma. Your arrogance in comments is also very revealing.
You’ve put in line about how you have empathy for people with trauma but your piece still reeks of victim blaming, ableism, and insensitivity. You have no idea what trauma is and what it is to live with it—that’s quite evident. Any word or idea can be weaponised. That doesn’t give you the license to lecture people living with trauma. Your arrogance in comments is also very revealing.
i have many of my own traumas that have taken me many years to work through. but this is exactly my point. i should not have to trot them out to win an argument. that is a losing game.
“Many of my own traumas?” In plural? You either live with symptoms of trauma or you don’t. You seem to be using “trauma” casually to label setbacks. If you really knew what it is to live with symptoms of trauma or cPTSD, doubt you’d be saying “get over it!” Because you’d know that’s not how it works. Lol.
I understand what you're saying, but maybe we shouldn't be trying to "win" arguments in the first place? The idea that people and things change as a result of linguistic combat, a survival of the fittest ideas, as opposed to authentic relating and understanding, is very common. I fall into it at times as well. It's very hard to exit out of "debate mode" when having conversations about important, contentious topics. I do think it's worth trying, however. That isn't to say we shouldn't be blunt and speak truth to power. I just am not sure whether the goal of "winning" is going to get us where we want to go, a world beyond systems of domination and power-over dynamics.
This applies just as much to my sarcasm-laden response to your article as it does to the article itself, to be fair, although I did try, towards the end, to understand where you were coming from and not merely communicate critique and challenge.
You’ve put in line about how you have empathy for people with trauma but your piece still reeks of victim blaming, ableism, and insensitivity. You have no idea what trauma is and what it is to live with it—that’s quite evident. Any word or idea can be weaponised. That doesn’t give you the license to lecture people living with trauma. Your arrogance in comments is also very revealing.
i have many of my own traumas that have taken me many years to work through. but this is exactly my point. i should not have to trot them out to win an argument. that is a losing game.
“Many of my own traumas?” In plural? You either live with symptoms of trauma or you don’t. You seem to be using “trauma” casually to label setbacks. If you really knew what it is to live with symptoms of trauma or cPTSD, doubt you’d be saying “get over it!” Because you’d know that’s not how it works. Lol.
I understand what you're saying, but maybe we shouldn't be trying to "win" arguments in the first place? The idea that people and things change as a result of linguistic combat, a survival of the fittest ideas, as opposed to authentic relating and understanding, is very common. I fall into it at times as well. It's very hard to exit out of "debate mode" when having conversations about important, contentious topics. I do think it's worth trying, however. That isn't to say we shouldn't be blunt and speak truth to power. I just am not sure whether the goal of "winning" is going to get us where we want to go, a world beyond systems of domination and power-over dynamics.
This applies just as much to my sarcasm-laden response to your article as it does to the article itself, to be fair, although I did try, towards the end, to understand where you were coming from and not merely communicate critique and challenge.
People with trauma generally understand that most survivors aren’t just sitting around to play games and win arguments.