A lot of replies here (obviously from people not already aware of The Discourse on this point) were genuinely confused variants on "But why, they're right, that's a valid concern." Let me leave a short thread for future readers explaining why that stuff is always unwelcome on here. (1/n)
It's totally understandable if you're dooming about any facet of the American experiment right now. So your feelings are "valid" in the sense that they represent real anxiety, and I get that. But to vent that anxiety in other people's spaces is wrong for three reasons.
First, it's factually wrong. There will be elections in 2026 and 2028 under Trump, just like there were elections last year under Trump and during his first term. This despite one of the two major parties now harboring a lot of anti-democratic elements and ideas.
I'm not particularly interested in convincing anyone on this point and won't try, the future is the future. But if the left side of the political spectrum is still the domain of scholarship and expertise, take note that you don't find scholars and experts you worrying about canceled US elections.
Second, and probably most importantly, it's tactically wrong. "No point discussing political opposition to fascism, there won't be elections anyway" cedes victory to your enemies. It's defeatism and nihilism.
Finally, it's wrong AS A MATTER OF ETIQUETTE. Entering a total stranger's discussion and leading with your private anxiety is as off-putting in social media replies as it would be in real life. If you wouldn't interrupt a stranger at a party to announce that America is doomed, don't do it here.
If you are anxious and sad about the state of the world, that's fine, and there are plenty of strategies for dealing with that. But I think you already know that drive-by online dooming isn't a strategy. It's selfish and adolescent. It's a contagion that only spreads the worst of you, not the best.
Take a second and think before posting the easy Eeyore reply. You might have something substantive to say instead. Or, even better, you can say nothing at all.
https://bsky.app/profile/kenjennings.bsky.social/post/3mbuedepurs2x
No, he's right about the etiquette. You might not realise it if that's how you genuinely feel, especially if you talk mainly with like minded people, but it's true.
The closest I've come in actual conversation is when someone has a habit of bringing up horrible things from their life or past on the most tenuous of connections. I don't want your depression to depress me, I'm sorry.
But more important, he's right tactically. Doomerism is the wrong tactic.
thats the thing, though, if you only ever want positive engagement with your fellow man, where do we form empathy towards strangers? Where the hell does society occur, if we are filtering all language through a vibes-based pachinko machine?
if our leadership's best take is, 'plug your ears, forget about the horrible violence, just wait for years....'
that is the opposite of leadership. you are irrevocably inculcated in failed liberal ideology
That's not what I or they said though. You can express displeasure or concern without injecting misery into a conversation. Or, most people can. It's actually ok if some people can't but really those people should have the good grace and good sense to keep it to themselves if they're not able to moderate themselves.
This reminds me of the people who only are around when good things are happening in thier life, and dip at the slightest discomfort.
This mindset you have, to have good grace and good sense to "keep misery" from conversation feels a bit like putting ones head in the sand.
"In polite society we don't talk about dark things that make people uncomfortable" is exactly how we got here. Get some courage and face reality. This reads like all conversions should be bubble wrapped so the misery of reality doesn't touch you in your feely feels. Thats what's juvenile to me. Heaven forbid you face hardship's misery. Oh no
The family in the film, "The Zone of Interest" sure knew how to keep polite society didn't they?
I'm not saying it's never appropriate to say how you truly feel, but it's genuinely important not to contribute to the doom-mongering, so doing it on social media I'd say is not appropriate.
Talking about your childhood trauma is not something you should bring up on a first date, to take an obvious example. It's not nice to spring that on your date for one, and it's also just not a good idea for reasons of self-interest. Even if it's really on your mind and you really want to talk about it.
talks about childhood trauma on a first date
We wouldn't be friends, and that is okay.
Camus said: "Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
I happen to agree. I don't judge, nor does it make me uncomfortable, when people need a space to talk about whatever. If it's painful, I empathize, for I know pain.
The US may not have free and fair elections again. This is a valid concern, hiding behind your social intellect or whatever, isn't going to change the reality. Doesn't change a public forum from being public.
If you're genuinely concerned that the US may not have free and fair elections again, you shouldn't be talking about it in the way exemplified here, because it makes it more likely to happen. Simple as that.
Great, but the purpose of conversation or online discussion is not solely about seeking what is true. The purpose of political discussion is often to obtain the political changes you think will bring about a better society. The purpose of going on a date is to find a partner (well, that's a main purpose.)
Bringing about positive political change often requires speaking the truth, but it doesn't require speaking every truth. Some are irrelevant. Some are relevant but distracting. This particular one (if it is true), when presented in this way, is defeatist. The fight against fascism is a fight and if you need to be economical with the truth to win it, that is better than losing, at which point there will be no truth except that which the neo-Gestapo permit.
Finding a romantic partner requires finding out true things about each other, but it also requires not violating boundaries. If I were to go on a date and the other person trauma dumped, or told me about their last bowel movement, it matters not one iota if those things are true! They are in fact red flags because if they don't understand that those are violating boundaries, it's likely they don't understand or will transgress other ones. Now, I'm not likely to go on any dates any time soon because I've been with my partner for years, and so it's now appropriate for us to talk about any such thing because we're very close.
Maybe you're a saint, and willing and able to listen to trauma anywhere, any time. I actually doubt it though; few people are. So I think more likely you understand that you can't just dump that stuff on people at any time and expect good results. I think you won't even have to dig deep to think of a time someone has said something true that nevertheless upset you.
If you truly can't think of a time, then I think you'll have an even easier job thinking of a time it happened to someone else, because it's extremely common. If say you can't even think of that then I'm afraid I don't believe you're trying.
I'm going to abstain from answering so I don't upset your boundaries, I might inject misery.
I get that you're depressed or whatever, but like ew. Just be happy!
Do you think it's not OK to want time off from a depressed person's conversations about unhappy they are (for example)? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying, even if it's not what you mean.
Ohmygawwwduh, can you just like stop talking about how you're sad? Just stop whining and smile!
Every time I see you in a comment section you are the most based motherfucker and I just wanted you to know I appreciate seeing you on lemmy /gen
I see, you're too brain damaged to read a reply and say something in response
I'm not sorry that people who are suffering aren't pretending to have perfect lives for your precious comfort.
Don't be. Instead you should be sorry that you're continuously mis-representing what I'm saying with no effort to understand.
I hope every person you meet trauma-dumps on you constantly until you get your head out of your ass.
I hope one day you understand that people don't go through suffering just to irritate you.
When have I said or implied that they do?
Entire thread so far.
Right, no surprise that you can't point to anything specific.
You've somehow inferred something that I didn't say and don't believe.
Where is your threshhold, then? How far are the depressed people you totally don't want to slap on a Stepford grin and enjoy life for you allowed to be unhappy before it bothers you?
You can be any amount unhappy. I can only imagine from this question that you don't understand that you can be experiencing an emotion like unhappiness without expressing it unfiltered.
Well, some people - especially children - have trouble with that, but part of growing up is learning emotional regulation. If you've not heard of the term before, look it up, because it is exactly the difference that you seem to be unaware of.
You could make the situation more concrete: suppose someone is not depressed, but is recently bereaved and so extremely unhappy. Their dead spouse or parent comes to mind very frequently. Is it a) helpful and b) acceptable for them to talk about their bereavement every single time it occurs to them? The answer to both is "no". Doing so upsets other people without benefitting the bereaved person. Of course, that person does need to talk about how they feel sometimes to someone. Not doing so can be very harmful in the long run. But not at all times to everyone, which is what I'm talking about. They're still deeply sad, but thanks to their ability to regulate their emotions, don't force everyone else to deal with their sadness.
The same thing applies to any emotion, from any cause.
Or at all, since it might slightly decrease your enjoyment of checks outside encroaching fascism.
You see, when you do that - when you take what I said, then change it (from "unfiltered" to "at all") based on nothing except your own biases, that leads you to wrong conclusions.
Also there are a number of differences between the analogy of trauma dumping and the actual situation of relentlessly posting defeatist shite everywhere that mean you need to keep them separate in your mind and are apparently failing to do so.
Your unwillingness to listen, understand and respond to what I'm saying is again noted. Goodbye, and try to learn either emotional regulation or reading comprehension; whichever skill it is you lack.
Learn compassion. It's the major skill you lack.
I don't really see how bringing up the possibility of elections being cancelled is more of a downer than planning on voting for whoever is willing to "prosecute the [current] regime at every level". The whole point is that the Republicans have genuinely, actually, for real turned fascist. That's horrifying and depressing on its own and I don't think it's out of line to at least assume that they would absolutely cancel/rig the elections if they think they can get away with it. Because that's what fascists do.
Yeah this isn't an example of springing a downer on someone who's having a normal conversation, but it's a similar vibe: someone has something on their mind all the time gnawing at them, so they can't help but bring it up, even if it's not a good idea, even if it's not true.
The tactics part is the infuriating one here, to me at least. Even if you genuinely think that there won't be elections, if you act like there won't be, all that does is further make it harder to find those voices pushing for democracy.
The regime will be less willing to pull elections if everyone keeps talking like they're going to happen. If doomers let them be de-facto "cancelled" then the regime doesn't have to do any work to rig them on their own.