I find it interesting in a lot of the conversations on this and other issues that those insisting that the world isn't binary and intersectionality much be the norm are the same people who seem to be insisting on making it all Us or Them.
This was an extremely good conversation. I sincerely appreciate the openness in both your parts. It was something that really gives me some things to consider about this and how to approach any future issues with a more rational mindset.
I do feel a measure of guilt for letting outside sources influence how I first reacted. But I take this as a learning experience that I and many others can do better in the future. So..alas. Good episode and great thought provoking.
i feel the conflation of “discomfort” with actual “harm” is the most alarming aspect of this entire kerfuffle.
In the Silverman case, i'm not saying anything in favor of or disfavoring the man or his views. I don’t consider myself well-informed on his views; however, in this context i contend that his beliefs are entirely irrelevant. Because a spokesperson appearing in a photo with somebody does not equate to endorsement or adoption of the views of the person they're pictured with...
some people may not *like* it, if this guy is in HQ, self-affiliates with TST, or refers to somebody else within tst or tst’s spokesperson as a "friend"
However, when the spokesperson unequivocally states his own views "always has (supported trans rights) 100%" i believe that should hold more weight than an unofficially affiliated third-party's commentary on social media.
personally, i find the "optics" of the mob-like behavior, the rush to publicly condemn and shun anybody, and the DEMAND for a particular person to denounce and separate themselves from any other human being due to *optics* to be poor.
personally, i feel more reputational *harm* is caused when ministers engage in bully-like (mob-like) behavior while simultaneously pretend doing so falls under the umbrella of activism.
i don't believe it is reasonable or sustainable for an organization as a whole or a spokesperson individually to take on the emotional labor that is squarely in the domain of the individual.
Discomfort is part of the human condition and a prerequisite for learning and navigating the realities of our world. Violence is of course to be avoided, but not discomfort. The ability to discern the difference between subjective "discomfort" and actual "harm" is crucial. This builds resilience which should be encouraged. i believe validating the notion that it is someone else's (ANYbody else’s, spokesperson, minister, layperson, friend, acquaintance, etc.) moral responsibility or obligation to relieve anyone else’s subjective discomfort is infantilizing.
Some interpret this approach as lacking empathy and/or favoring “decorum” over compassion. i simply do not agree, but i also think it's okay to agree to disagree.
it makes me sad to see some within our community teaching, reinforcing, and preferencing the mental habit of clinging to the anxious and depressive tendencies of interpreting the feeling of *discomfort* or the crippling fear of being viewed as "un-virtuous" to others and equating that to actual “harm" - due to their well-intentioned belief that doing so will motivate some presumed positive social or political change. Engaging in this type of behavior is essentially an endorsement of reverse Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Which, i believe to be cruel & compassionless, but it is dressed up like ~infinite~ compassion.
i prefer the "optics" of resilience -- of knowing and demonstrating that *cooties* aren't real and refusal to accept these cognitive distortions as equivalent to tangible harm, and of knowing that guilt by association isn't real.
i am 100% in favor of conversations that encourage more empathetic understandings and responses. Example: "When i saw this photo and Silverman referring to tst's spokesperson as a 'friend,' i experienced discomfort." "When the demands for clarification about how the photo came to be were dismissed as hysterical, i felt concerned." "I feel worried that people might interpret this photo as tst's endorsement of Silverman's view or that it may set a precedent that in turn makes people feel unsafe - could we have a conversation about that?"
To me, that's a 100% reasonable request and it is extending compassion and should be met with compassion. However, stating that (though perhaps not the intent) the photo and the spokesperson's response unequivocally caused actual "harm;" therefore, it is the spokesperson's *responsibility* to rectify the actual "harm" and a conversation or clarification is OWED as a result... is where i completely disagree. I believe that type of discourse is counterproductive.
Maybe Lucien just needs to explain his point of view again but in a longer format this time. Maybe a 24 hour broadcast oughta do it.
Pause to let the sarcasm sink in.
In all seriousness, I agree with Lucien on so much. The problem is, Lucien seems to be labouring under the idea that if we could all just see it from his side, then we'd get it. He has dug his heels in and explained himself the exact same way several times now.
The issue is, we know exactly where he stands on the matter, to varying degrees of agreement. But the biggest reason the community are pissed that he he's either accidentally forgetting or deliberately ignoring is that he isn't just "some guy" who took a pic with a transphobe, he's the representative of The Satanic Temple, the organisation many of us have dedicated blood sweat and tears to. It would have cost absolutely nothing for Lucien to say something along the lines of "oh shit I didnt know about his trans views. I will distance myself from him". Does Lucien owe an apology for the picture? No, I don't think so. But I don't care if he didn't intend to cause any hurt in the TST community. If he wants to stand by that plea, then he has forgotten the difference between intent and impact.
Nobody wants to force an apology put of Lucien, we don't want to make him say or do anything he doesn't want to, that would not be fair. We, as a community are just so deeply and sorely wounded and hurt that the representative of our religious organisation didn't want to say anything to even remotely distance himself from a transphobe in the first place.
Lucien says mob mentality as a defence for having so many people disagree with him at once. This entire conversation felt like the weirdest attempt at gaslighting us while instead of being properly questioned over the whole thing like he should have, he just got to parrot the exact same apathetic rhetoric that has led to members renouncing their memberships in droves.
Discomfort is what I would imagine a lot of people felt upon first seeing the picture and then watching Lucien fold his arms and stamp his feet and refuse to distance himself from Silverman.
Harm is what has been done to the reputation of:
1. Each and every minister who continues to serve under this example of our top brass.
2. The various safe spaces created within The Satanic Temple by it's various congregations and campaigns.
3. The Satanic Temple in general when Silverman is more than happy to refer to TST as "we" and has only started doing so since this whole debacle. The optics alone are doing damage to our reputation and the optics are clear: Transphobes are welcome in The Satanic Temple.
Thank you for responding and sharing your perspective.
After reading your reply, my initial thoughts are:
okay, so, by that logic -- since xtians believe in a literal Hell (to them it is 100% real) as a result even if we don't believe in a literal devil - they believe our presence invites literal demons and evil to prey upon the souls of the world and any association with us is “harmful” to everyone's soul and the Earth in general. Are we responsible for reconciling/rectifying the "harm" we cause them? Because their distress is sincerely felt?
and as an aside, i would just like to add that not all of TST feels harmed by this situation (as evidenced by the existence of this podcast.)
TST isn’t a monolith and members of TST who are lgbtq+ don’t all share one singular view / aren’t monolithic in their thinking either… many don’t agree that the photo or the spokesperson’s response have caused harm, nor do they feel unsafe as a result.
i will add my perspective on the distinction between “harm” and “discomfort” in a separate comment, but please do not feel obligated to read it.
i understand that our views do not align on this topic and i do not wish to impose mine upon you.
The more I learn about this the more I think this dude was trying to bait Lucien into denouncing him. He isn't famous and wanted drama and to be like "haha look the satanic temple cancelled me!" so he could get publicity.
If he wanted to sow dysfunction and gain publicity, this is definitely the way to do it. I don’t know if that’s the case, but it would certainly be an effective strategy.
I find it interesting in a lot of the conversations on this and other issues that those insisting that the world isn't binary and intersectionality much be the norm are the same people who seem to be insisting on making it all Us or Them.
Excellent observation
This was an extremely good conversation. I sincerely appreciate the openness in both your parts. It was something that really gives me some things to consider about this and how to approach any future issues with a more rational mindset.
I do feel a measure of guilt for letting outside sources influence how I first reacted. But I take this as a learning experience that I and many others can do better in the future. So..alas. Good episode and great thought provoking.
Illiam, thanks so much for commenting. I'm glad the episode was helpful. We are all learning together <3
Illiam, you’re always so thoughtful and kind. No reason to feel guilty. As Stephen said, we’re all learning together. 🖤
i feel the conflation of “discomfort” with actual “harm” is the most alarming aspect of this entire kerfuffle.
In the Silverman case, i'm not saying anything in favor of or disfavoring the man or his views. I don’t consider myself well-informed on his views; however, in this context i contend that his beliefs are entirely irrelevant. Because a spokesperson appearing in a photo with somebody does not equate to endorsement or adoption of the views of the person they're pictured with...
some people may not *like* it, if this guy is in HQ, self-affiliates with TST, or refers to somebody else within tst or tst’s spokesperson as a "friend"
However, when the spokesperson unequivocally states his own views "always has (supported trans rights) 100%" i believe that should hold more weight than an unofficially affiliated third-party's commentary on social media.
personally, i find the "optics" of the mob-like behavior, the rush to publicly condemn and shun anybody, and the DEMAND for a particular person to denounce and separate themselves from any other human being due to *optics* to be poor.
personally, i feel more reputational *harm* is caused when ministers engage in bully-like (mob-like) behavior while simultaneously pretend doing so falls under the umbrella of activism.
i don't believe it is reasonable or sustainable for an organization as a whole or a spokesperson individually to take on the emotional labor that is squarely in the domain of the individual.
Discomfort is part of the human condition and a prerequisite for learning and navigating the realities of our world. Violence is of course to be avoided, but not discomfort. The ability to discern the difference between subjective "discomfort" and actual "harm" is crucial. This builds resilience which should be encouraged. i believe validating the notion that it is someone else's (ANYbody else’s, spokesperson, minister, layperson, friend, acquaintance, etc.) moral responsibility or obligation to relieve anyone else’s subjective discomfort is infantilizing.
Some interpret this approach as lacking empathy and/or favoring “decorum” over compassion. i simply do not agree, but i also think it's okay to agree to disagree.
it makes me sad to see some within our community teaching, reinforcing, and preferencing the mental habit of clinging to the anxious and depressive tendencies of interpreting the feeling of *discomfort* or the crippling fear of being viewed as "un-virtuous" to others and equating that to actual “harm" - due to their well-intentioned belief that doing so will motivate some presumed positive social or political change. Engaging in this type of behavior is essentially an endorsement of reverse Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Which, i believe to be cruel & compassionless, but it is dressed up like ~infinite~ compassion.
i prefer the "optics" of resilience -- of knowing and demonstrating that *cooties* aren't real and refusal to accept these cognitive distortions as equivalent to tangible harm, and of knowing that guilt by association isn't real.
i am 100% in favor of conversations that encourage more empathetic understandings and responses. Example: "When i saw this photo and Silverman referring to tst's spokesperson as a 'friend,' i experienced discomfort." "When the demands for clarification about how the photo came to be were dismissed as hysterical, i felt concerned." "I feel worried that people might interpret this photo as tst's endorsement of Silverman's view or that it may set a precedent that in turn makes people feel unsafe - could we have a conversation about that?"
To me, that's a 100% reasonable request and it is extending compassion and should be met with compassion. However, stating that (though perhaps not the intent) the photo and the spokesperson's response unequivocally caused actual "harm;" therefore, it is the spokesperson's *responsibility* to rectify the actual "harm" and a conversation or clarification is OWED as a result... is where i completely disagree. I believe that type of discourse is counterproductive.
The twitter post didn't work.
The patreon post didn't work.
Appearing on a podcast didn't work.
Maybe Lucien just needs to explain his point of view again but in a longer format this time. Maybe a 24 hour broadcast oughta do it.
Pause to let the sarcasm sink in.
In all seriousness, I agree with Lucien on so much. The problem is, Lucien seems to be labouring under the idea that if we could all just see it from his side, then we'd get it. He has dug his heels in and explained himself the exact same way several times now.
The issue is, we know exactly where he stands on the matter, to varying degrees of agreement. But the biggest reason the community are pissed that he he's either accidentally forgetting or deliberately ignoring is that he isn't just "some guy" who took a pic with a transphobe, he's the representative of The Satanic Temple, the organisation many of us have dedicated blood sweat and tears to. It would have cost absolutely nothing for Lucien to say something along the lines of "oh shit I didnt know about his trans views. I will distance myself from him". Does Lucien owe an apology for the picture? No, I don't think so. But I don't care if he didn't intend to cause any hurt in the TST community. If he wants to stand by that plea, then he has forgotten the difference between intent and impact.
Nobody wants to force an apology put of Lucien, we don't want to make him say or do anything he doesn't want to, that would not be fair. We, as a community are just so deeply and sorely wounded and hurt that the representative of our religious organisation didn't want to say anything to even remotely distance himself from a transphobe in the first place.
Lucien says mob mentality as a defence for having so many people disagree with him at once. This entire conversation felt like the weirdest attempt at gaslighting us while instead of being properly questioned over the whole thing like he should have, he just got to parrot the exact same apathetic rhetoric that has led to members renouncing their memberships in droves.
But sure, tell us again how you're the victim.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
How do you distinguish between “harm” and “discomfort”?
Discomfort is what I would imagine a lot of people felt upon first seeing the picture and then watching Lucien fold his arms and stamp his feet and refuse to distance himself from Silverman.
Harm is what has been done to the reputation of:
1. Each and every minister who continues to serve under this example of our top brass.
2. The various safe spaces created within The Satanic Temple by it's various congregations and campaigns.
3. The Satanic Temple in general when Silverman is more than happy to refer to TST as "we" and has only started doing so since this whole debacle. The optics alone are doing damage to our reputation and the optics are clear: Transphobes are welcome in The Satanic Temple.
Thank you for responding and sharing your perspective.
After reading your reply, my initial thoughts are:
okay, so, by that logic -- since xtians believe in a literal Hell (to them it is 100% real) as a result even if we don't believe in a literal devil - they believe our presence invites literal demons and evil to prey upon the souls of the world and any association with us is “harmful” to everyone's soul and the Earth in general. Are we responsible for reconciling/rectifying the "harm" we cause them? Because their distress is sincerely felt?
and as an aside, i would just like to add that not all of TST feels harmed by this situation (as evidenced by the existence of this podcast.)
TST isn’t a monolith and members of TST who are lgbtq+ don’t all share one singular view / aren’t monolithic in their thinking either… many don’t agree that the photo or the spokesperson’s response have caused harm, nor do they feel unsafe as a result.
i will add my perspective on the distinction between “harm” and “discomfort” in a separate comment, but please do not feel obligated to read it.
i understand that our views do not align on this topic and i do not wish to impose mine upon you.
The more I learn about this the more I think this dude was trying to bait Lucien into denouncing him. He isn't famous and wanted drama and to be like "haha look the satanic temple cancelled me!" so he could get publicity.
If he wanted to sow dysfunction and gain publicity, this is definitely the way to do it. I don’t know if that’s the case, but it would certainly be an effective strategy.