Monday, January 20, 2014

Perception and Anger

Reference Liz's blog again.

It's pretty sad when someone has only their anger to sustain them.  Did I not say, in my previous post, that Kosilek has won the case, and the appeal?  Therefore Kosilek gets the surgery?

If it is medically necessary, in Kosilek's case, by this decision and it's appeal, then Kosilek legally has the right to receive it. 

Why yes, I did.  But faux moral outrage (there's that phrase again, funny how that keeps coming up) tends to blind a person to what's actually being said, and only hear what they want to hear.

It's about perception, Liz.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Legal is one thing, public opinion is another.  It would seem, despite your insistence that my aim is to dismantle the Constitution and throw the United States back into the dark ages (uh oh, that sounds like outrage), that I did indeed agree with you.  See above, and the previous post that I quoted.  I haven't said it is illegal, at all.  Rather, it's about perception.

Lets look at a few things that are legal, shall we?

One, the previously mentioned O.J. Simpson case.  He did not commit murder, legally.  Has that mattered since the day he was found not guilty?  Not a bit.  He was outcast, regardless of that verdict.  No one cared that he was not guilty.  It was the perception of what occurred that mattered.

Two, the Affordable Care Act.  Entirely legal, since it was passed by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court.  Nevertheless, the last poll I looked at, 59% of those polled said its a "bad law," by the poll's question.  Again, it's legal.  That doesn't matter to a majority of the country, plus or minus 3 percentage points, certainly.  Their perception of the law is that it's bad, in spite of everything that's being said for it's good.  My opinion on it doesn't matter here, either, it's how it is being seen.

Three, NSA data gathering.  Legal again.  Affirmed by many challenges and rulings.  Yet it seems to have ticked off numerous other countries around the world, and not a few citizens of the U.S., as well.  But it's legal!  That didn't stop Mr. Snowden, though; he's hailed as bringing to light quite an outrageous chain of events by many.  Is the law all that matters here, too?  Or is the public perception here to be dismissed?

Perception.  It can make things far more miserable for someone, or a group, than having the law on one's side.

None of what I say, of course, matters.  You want to be angry.  You are angry at the world, angry at anyone who disagrees with you and your moral position.  I'm sure you'll tell me that I'm fake, "faux,"  and have internalized transphobia again or something, so you can feel smug and superior.  You'll rail at me, or someone else who doesn't accept you and your positions absolutely, no doubt publicly, and think you've scored points.  But you'll still be angry.  

Anger is an awfully consuming emotion.  It's sad to see someone so driven by it, and unable to let it go.  There's a whole world out there, just waiting to have you.  But you'll choose the insular world where everyone you keep handy agrees with you, and you can be angry with everything that's outside it, I have no doubt.  And everyone outside moves further and further away, until there's only you, all alone.  

Go ahead, be angry with me for saying that.  You can even have the last, triumphant, vitriolic word over at your place.  Because I'm moving away, too.  One less person to rail against.  You win!  

Or have you, really?


  1. If I were giving her internet advice, since she rarely makes clear and concise arguments...anger prevents that...would be to follow a path of many before her. Create a sock puppet account and make your points to someone that she agrees with, like, you know, Transadvocate, and then maybe those brainiacs would provide some sort of counterpoint? Or at least a new way to work internalized transphobia into a sentence?

    1. It could work for a while, but their own writing style usually has a tendency to give them away.

      In the meantime, I'd hope someone as gung-ho nation of laws and such as she is wouldn't disagree with any of those decisions or laws, or the actions that people that do disagree with them take. That would be awfully hypocritical.