I'm really curious about the toxic trait of centering oneself in things that don't concern you. This seems to be a trait almost exclusive to white men but I have kind of seen it occasionally with white women ... rarely though.
I learn a lot from people that I know in a variety of professions. I'm big on asking lots of questions because I love to learn from people who love what they do and are passionate about sharing / teaching.
The keyword being "ASK" ...
1/
In my personal dictionary there is passive centering and aggressive centering ... white people (both men and women) tend to do both. But white men especially tend to be aggressive centering types.
I think that white male aggressive centering is one of the primary reasons the Internet is 99% a cesspool. It never used to be and at my age I do remember pre-public Internet times well.
I wonder why this trait is so specific to men ... why their reality, perspectives, and knowledge is "above all".
I aggressively block both aggressive and passive centering types. I grew up in a family of toxic narcissistic self-centering people and those traits stand out to me loudly.
There are ways of sharing information with others both in your own space and also in others that doesn't have to be aggressively or passively centering.
Not everyone is asking for you to step into their space and share. It's important to know your place especially while within other people's personal or virtual space.
When I taught communications I always asked people why they didn't treat online communications in the same way they treated offline ones.
Some people had very clear reasons why they didn't consider online encounters with other people the same as offline ones ... but those answers were often about dehumanizing online presences as if they weren't real (scary though).
Some answers were more parasocial in nature as far as feeling inappropriately close or entitled to people online etc
1/
Would you walk over to someones table at a restaurant and start volunteering your opinions or knowledge simply because you overheard two people having a discussion in a public space? Would you do this in an elevator as well? Would you feel the need to center yourself between two people who are strangers to you and start telling them what you think about the subjects they are discussing? Is that your place? If you think it is I would deeply question why.
I actually think more people in current times - ie times that are ruled by social media - would actually walk up to strangers and do exactly that. I think social media has emboldened this kind of inappropriate social behavior that makes people think that absolutely everything they see, hear, overhear, or observe is 100% their business to interfere in which has advantages (like filming police brutality etc) and disadvantages (like harassment and bullying).
White people (especially men) have a very strong sense of entitlement ... and I think that is one of the primary reasons for their aggressive self-centering, audacity, caucacity, and arrogance.
That entitlement, enabled and strengthened by white supremacy and patriarchal bias, creates this kind of mild sociopathy and narcissistic behavior that seems prevalent in most men I encounter online.
What's the phrase? Not all men, but always a man. Not all white men, but always a white man.
𝘈𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭,” 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺, “𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵.” 𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯, 𝘥𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘰𝘳: 𝘯𝘢𝘺, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘻𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳.
1/
𝘕𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳, 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭: 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘪𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘯? 𝘠𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵.
- Seneca "On Anger"
The argument I hear most is that if you put something on social media that that automatically means its open season for anyone to comment. It's very similar to when I hear things like
If you choose to become an actor then you accept harassment, unwell people, etc. If you choose to become an athlete then you have to accept x, y, z ... If you choose to wear a certain kind of clothes then you are inviting x, y, z ... if you present as a woman then you should expect x, y, z ...
Is that true tho?
If you "x" ...then
You have to accept ...
You are inviting ...
You should expect ...
Are these phrases really what people feel about other human beings rights, space, thoughts, or beliefs? Those concepts all sound like self-centering excuses to me.
Why are those ideas more preferable over something as simple as just minding your own damn business?
As I've said so many times here ... just because you see something go by on the firehose, that doesn't automatically mean you SHOULD or NEED TO respond to it in any kind of way ... especially if it's something that has absolutely nothing to do with you, isn't asking for opinions, isn't seeking feedback, or especially if it's something you disagree with. You don't have to respond to ANYTHING you see. It's a choice you are making. It's not "because x happens, y must follow" ... It is your choice.
My experiences and my knowledge are two different things. Neither one of them makes me an authority on anyone else's reality. It's why you will hardly ever see me respond to anything anyone posts unless its to say thank you or something positive. Almost nothing here is any of my business. Unless it's something I posted on my own feed, then I personally feel I have nothing to offer beyond positive energy.
If you love it and I love it then I usually ❤️ it.
If you post it and I agree then I ❤️ it.
If you post it and it makes me feel something positive, I ❤️ it and thank you.
If you love it and I hate it then I am silent.
If you post it and I disagree then I am silent.
If you post it and it makes me feel something negative, I am silent.
If you step into my feed and say some bullshit, I block you or correct you or both.
It's that simple.
Almost nothing outside of my personal feed is any of my business. If people are sharing personal things it's because they want to be their most authentic selves and share who they are, their experiences, their knowledge with others ...
That is not an invitation to get in their business and center myself ... that's an opportunity to LISTEN and LEARN and APPRECIATE who that person is and what they are sharing. It's an opportunity to be thankful for someones openness and kindness.
I am mostly silent because I have very little to offer outside of my personal experiences in the world which I share on my personal feed. I'm not going to step into someone else's feed unless I feel I can learn something from them or if they have knowledge about something that I really want to learn about and they don't mind sharing. Other than that ... I am minding my own damn business.
𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘸𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬. - Epictetus
If someone wants my opinion, they can ask me for it.
Otherwise ... it's none of my business unless I feel that positive energy might be useful.
For most of my life I was one of those people who had an opinion on absolutely EVERYTHING.
I am still that person ... the only difference is I have learned my place in the realities of everyone around me ... and I have learned to appreciate the beauty, knowledge, and epicness of others instead of critiquing it.
@thewebrecluse I think this is part of maturing for a lot of people. Even when you're objectively right... It isn't always helpful or productive to just blurt the truth out. It took me a while to figure that out. And, as it turns out, you aren't always spot on in the first place. And by "you", I mean I.
Have you seen Innuendo Studio's playlist "Why Are You So Angry?"? It explained a lot about those men for me. And why those men and not all men. I'll link it for others even if you've seen it.
@MeditatorMom Much appreciated contribution to this thread. Yes I have seen it and it is very helpful. Thanks for sharing it here. Maturing ... I dunno ... the older men are, the worse they become not better so I'm not sure its maturity as much as its fear and an emboldened sense of entitlement especially in current times. Most male gamers I deal with are kids and kids are psychotic so I expect that. But on social media it's mainly middle age or older men who I see this from.
@MeditatorMom Very true. Older doesn't automatically mean more mature. I was being way to literal. I always assume when people talk about maturity, they mean specifically aging into wisdom. I think I assumed that because you shared the video essays about gamers which are often young men and boys. My apologies.
@thewebrecluse No worries at all! What that video series doesn't explain is those older men who didn't mature, who are still Angry Jack a lot of the time. Why didn't they mature? Lots of other men did. Men commenting on those videos, Innuendo Studios himself who doesn't even sound that old. Don't know the answer to that.
@MeditatorMom Indeed. I have never been able to get an answer because most white men are insane, unstable, emotionally dysregulated, racist, angry, or simply incapable of understanding their own reasons and motivations or articulating them in any kind of way that doesn't involve anger. I don't think we'll ever know the answer to why because not even they know.
@thewebrecluse Older isn't necessarily more mature... Some folks get older but don't mature much.
The tie-in to anger you mentioned also tracks. Those same men are so angry. Older, angry, and not so mature. These guys are not elders in the sense of leading the community with their accumulated life wisdom.