.jpg)
United States of PTSD
Season One: Mental health concerns are on the rise in the United States. This podcast will look at the influencing factors contributing to the decline of our culture. With the rise of school shootings, political divisiveness, increasing levels of hate, and a chronic war of peoples' rights, we have entered a domestic war that never ends. Our podcast will look at whether this is done by design or is it an abject failure. We will discuss it from a clinical and common-sense perspective. Secondarily we will discuss ways to protect yourself from being further traumatized. Hosted by Matthew Boucher LICSW LCDP (licensed in RI) who has over 20 years of experience working with people who have addictions and trauma with a specialty of pregnant/postpartum women. Co-host Wendy Picard is a Learning and Development consultant with 15 years of experience, lifelong observer of the human condition, and diagnosed with PTSD in 1994.
Season Two: Is joined by Donna Gaudette and Julia Kirkpatrick BSW. Julia is currently working on obtaining her MSW and her LCSW. She is a welcome addition to the podcast.
Season Three: Cora Lee Kennedy provided research and worked as a temporary co-host. Dr. Erika Lin-Hendel joins as a co-host for season 3.
United States of PTSD
S 3 E: 11 Selective Outrage and the Illusion of Neutrality in Politics
The episode delves into the concepts of cognitive dissonance and selective outrage, exploring how they shape our political identities and conversations. The hosts discuss the implications of a polarized political landscape and emphasize the importance of understanding differing perspectives as a path to unity and constructive change.
• Examining the impact of selective outrage
• Understanding cognitive dissonance in political discourse
• Critique of the two-party system and its implications
• Analysis of the War on Drugs as a systemic issue
• Discussion on the selective outrage surrounding international conflicts
• Importance of empathy and understanding in political conversations
• Call for community engagement and local activism
• Encouragement to move beyond binary thinking in politics
Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
https://uppbeat.io/t/hartzmann/no-time-to-die
License code: S4CEQWLNQXVZUMU4
Artwork and logo design by Misty Rae.
Special thanks to Joanna Roux for editing help.
Special thanks to the listeners and all the wonderful people who helped listen to and provide feedback on the episode's prerelease.
Please feel free to email Matt topics or suggestions, questions or feedback.
Matt@unitedstatesofPTSD.com
This podcast is not intended to serve as therapeutic advice or to replace any professional treatment. These opinions belong to us and do not reflect any company or agency. Hello everybody and welcome back to another episode of the United States of PTSD. Today I have back with me Mike Thibault. Mike, you were on the episode we did about examining the political environment. Was it post or before the election? I can't remember it was after the election. Yeah, we did it on processing the election and a lot of you had actually written in and talked about how much you liked Mike and there was a couple of comments on the Buzzsprout board about Mike. So hopefully you know everybody should be glad you're back.
Speaker 2:I'm happy to be back. It's a pleasure and thank you all for your kind words. Who? Who wrote or commented or wrote or commented.
Speaker 1:So we're going to pick up a little bit, I think, that first conversation that we had with Cora and about how people handled the election.
Speaker 1:Afterwards, we're going to talk a little bit more detail about that, because what I have noticed and you and I were just discussing this before we started recording was there's two things that are happening right now. One of them is selective outrage, and I would even say it borders a little bit on virtue. Signaling where what that means is, I think people are handpicking what they want to be upset about, while ignoring things that are equally upsetting, or actually the same, while then claiming to be on this virtuous high ground, you know, saying like, oh, I'm doing something. And that also goes into cognitive dissonance, and for people who don't know what cognitive distance dissonance is, it's a therapeutic word that means when somebody is experiencing two opposite beliefs or values that are conflicting and causing discomfort for the person, and I think we want to highlight those two specific things throughout this episode, because it's going to be coming up a lot, I think, in everything that we talk about. Mike, is there anything you want to add to that?
Speaker 2:dissonance from people who, you know, have supported or or rather, stood by and and been idle around certain ideology for, um, the majority of the previous presidency. And now that a new administration propels the same ideology, uh, suddenly it's an issue, and I I don't mean that to say that, um, I'm in agreeance with, with the stances that are in place now or that have been, but rather that, uh, it seems as though there, as though there's an attribute excuse me that there's. Oh gosh, I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought another.
Speaker 1:Another great point if anybody has listened to even one of our previous episodes, I think people would know that neither one of us support trump. We both can't stand him. But the problem is when and I've noticed myself is when you start to point out that maybe the things that people are getting upset about oh I don't know didn't happen under his presidency or are things that he didn't do, you're automatically labeled a Trump supporter. This has happened to me like numerous times now, where people are like what do you expect from like you You're a Trump supporter. I'm, like I've been, like the most vocal person against Trump like forever. But you can't take a stance without, you, can't be neutral without somebody then trying to push you on one side or the other, because I mean, previously I got the opposite of it too where if I criticize Trump, then suddenly I'm this like really extreme liberal and it's like, okay, wait, I don't have to be either.
Speaker 1:One of those things to just call out what I'm seeing is not okay. I don't care who's doing it, I don't care what political umbrella they're under, and I still firmly believe we have one party. I really do not believe that we have a two-party system. If you look at who's funding them, it's very clear. I mean 80, 90% of them are owned by one entity and they are all operating under that one entity.
Speaker 1:So this whole belief that one side is better than the other is just, it's an illusion, and I do want to talk about that a little bit more as we move on through the episode. So thank you for bringing that up. And again, for those of you who are tuning in for the first time, we don't, we did not support Trump. We don't support Trump, and I feel like I have to say that every single time because people just they want to believe what they want to believe. I think the man is disgusting, but I also think the other administration was equally disgusting. So the benefit of taking a neutral stance is to really start to see the problems, because when you're too far in the mud, you can't see what's actually happening, and that's by design.
Speaker 2:I totally agree. I think I mean I say it all the time it's two heads of the same beast. When it comes to having a two party system, you have to look at who is benefiting from policy put in place, who's benefiting from political division between parties and between ideologies. And with that, I think this is a point in history where, specifically in America, our ideologies have become so intertwined with our sense of identity that when you threaten someone's political ideology, it is an attack on their identity, or at least perceived that way. And with that, to your point of taking more of a middle ground stance, I think that makes people uncomfortable, that you haven't taken a side and that you haven't chosen which head of the beast you're belonging to. It's a real shame because it doesn't facilitate an environment that's actually conducive to real conversation and real understanding of each other's perspectives and coming to actual resolution.
Speaker 1:Mike, I love that you say that, because I just saw that happen recently. As you know, I do a lot of work in addictions and teach classes on addiction, and we were talking about the war on drugs and how the war on drugs really has been a war on poverty and how it is systematically attacked very specific ethnic groups, but it's also gone after the lgbt community as well and how they do that and people who are impoverished, and how it's really designed to not work right and that that has been under. That started under nixon, so it's been under every presidency since obama being the only person who challenged the whole cocaine crack penalty, where people who were being charged with crack cocaine were getting 100 times the amount of sentence that somebody who was being charged with cocaine was, even though it's the same drug, and that was specifically targeting low income women of color, with the whole crack baby thing, which I think I talked about on a previous episode. Um, with the whole crack baby thing, which I think I talked about on a previous episode. So I think we just see that in multiple different arenas throughout our country and what's interesting is so learning about the drug, learning about the war on drugs, learning about how the treatment system has been epically failing for decades and continues to get gutted and financially gutted. And then what we love to do is we love to get rid of programs that are working.
Speaker 1:And then we see a problem when we come back three years later, when we form committee after committee to brainstorm why that problem is happening, only to come up with the idea that we cut in the first place and pretend it's like this novel idea and then suddenly re-implement it. And we have done this over and over and over again. And I think that that's what's happening now, right? So after reading all of that information, one person had then commented and said so do you think that under the new administration coming in, that it's going to really destroy the treatment system? And I was like, did you not like just like what happened to all the information we just talked about that the treatment system has been failing, it has been gutted under every single presidency and it systematically has not been working since Nixon. And then what the person hears is, yeah, but what about the new administration? They're going to destroy it.
Speaker 1:Well, it's already a broken system that hasn't been working. You can't break what's broken. I mean, I guess you can break it a little bit more, but the reality is is that it's just not. It's fundamentally designed not to work, just like most of our systems. So you know, we have to stop looking at it as blaming Trump is not the problem. Trump is a symptom of a bigger problem. Trump wouldn't be in office if we didn't have a bigger issue here, and that's what people don't seem to want to look at. They want to just kind of point to the we need a villain, right. So we need to kind of have a villain. But the problem in the last election is we had two villains. So with two villains you can't galvanize support, and that, of course, was done by design.
Speaker 2:Absolutely yeah, and I, um, I think you know, when you talk about having systematic change versus uh, like the figurehead change, um, I think it kind of ties into this idea of virtue signaling or or of um, uh, I'm sorry, what was the word? Uh, the type of outrage, oh, selective outrage. Selective outrage, thank you. Um, because people are not inherently upset at these systems that perpetuate these uh uh programs that fail people and and injustices for everyday people on a regular basis, regardless of what party the administration is tied to. People are only mad at the party that heads the administration or that heads the system. And so, with that, if it was true outrage at what is happening, it would be at the system and there would be a collective sense of unity to do something about it rather than to simply be mad and yell about it on social media.
Speaker 1:One of the areas that I have personally seen a lot of selective outrage on, and before I say that, I want to give the quote that I had written down by Martin Luther King, because I think it piggybacks off what you said, which Martin Luther King said he who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetuate it. And I think if we keep that again in the background when I say this next part, you'll see the level of cognitive dissonance which is that. I'm sure you mentioned social media. I've been seeing quite a few people post things like if you voted for Trump, he's a misogynist, a racist and a narcissist. That means you must be a misogynist and racist and narcissist or you support that. I can't be your friend, I can't be your family member, and they just start cutting people off and I've been seeing this from many different people and I will admit, during his first presidency I was the same way.
Speaker 1:But what stopped me from doing that was I have family members who are Trump supporters and, to be honest with you, they're some of my the people I'm the closest to in my family, and I think what helped about that was I actually started to understand their perspective and where they were coming from. Now I doesn't mean I agree with the stuff that they were saying, but I was listening to them enough that I could actually understand them and respect them. So that helped kind of pull me back off that ledge that I was on. But if we go by that standard, if we can say the person you voted for is a direct reflection of who you are, then what would that make you if you voted for a candidate who actively supported and funded a genocide against a racial group, an ethnic cleansing that was paid for with your tax dollars, while 60% of the country said stop doing it? So if you voted for that, based on your theory about who voted for Trump, what does that make you then?
Speaker 2:Exactly and actually, I first want to address the point that you made about the identity of, or rather the behavior of, you know the kind of black and white thinking of either cutting off people who don't believe in what you believe in or polarizing people who don't align with your beliefs. It's something I was actually talking about the other day in one of my classes and I also used to participate in that kind of behavior, and I think it's easy to, because it's emotionally charged. And when you actually take a step back to think about, or rather to take the time to speak with these people and try to consider what is the source of this belief? Where is this coming from? Why are they thinking the way they do?
Speaker 2:And, conversely, doing the same with your own beliefs and behaviors, I think it makes for a lot better of a playing ground for you to actually have that kind of conversation with and to come to some sort of understanding, whether or not you agree with the actual outcome of their thoughts. I think having access to that source material is really important for facilitating understanding and that's something to work with, you know. I mean, you don't have to agree with it or compromise on something that you're really steadfast in your beliefs in, but I think it's important to be able to truly understand that. Entirely hypocritical to say that voting for someone like Trump makes you a racist or a homophobe, etc. And meanwhile you're voting for someone who has completely endorsed genocide. That's the epitome of hypocrisy, because essentially what you're saying is that you endorse genocide by that same logic.
Speaker 1:Exactly, and some of the other arguments you had mentioned. This one earlier too is people would say and these are actual things I've heard people say when I brought up the discrepancy with genocide, things like oh well, if you're going to nitpick every issue, or oh, I'm really worried more about domestic issues, I'm not worried about what's happening overseas. Well, of course you know your money is being sent to fund a genocide, so it is a domestic issue, it's absolutely impacting your finances, but they, they do not want to look at that. And then they'll say, well, it's the lesser of two evils. Oh, okay, so murdering. What is it up to now?
Speaker 1:I think the didn't Trump accidentally give away the real number and it was over a hundred thousand, which I knew was the case all along, because that number hadn't changed since, like March of last year, where it was 42,000. And every day, you could sign on to anything besides Facebook that you know, like TikTok or Instagram, and you could see live videos of people being killed and like burned to death and like children being shot, schools being shot up, but the number never changed in terms of how many people were dying. So we can say that it's probably well over 100,000. And that's probably even an underestimate, and I had questioned that, I think, a long time ago, because at one point on one of the episodes I even said I believed it was well over 100,000. Because if you're paying attention, things just make sense. It's like the election when people were surprised that Harris lost. I mean, if you know this, because we talked about it a lot, go back and listen to the episodes. I did Well, before the election I knew she was going to lose, because if anybody was paying attention, it was clear she was going to lose. She wasn't listening to the constituents. She was actively ignoring the Muslim community.
Speaker 1:The support for Trump was phenomenal I mean, I think it was actually higher than it was the first time but people still wanted to pretend it wasn't happening. And I remember somebody getting mad at me when I said, well, I'm going to I'm not voting for either one of them to vote for Stein, and somebody was basically like you know, then you are part of the problem and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I mean OK, first of all, third party voters didn't even make she still wouldn't want. So you can throw that right out in the garbage. But the problem, I said back to her is, if you really want her to win, then maybe you should contact her and tell her to stop funding genocide and change her platform, because that's why she's losing, not because of my vote, but because the large majority of people are saying like, hey, this is bullshit, like we need to stop doing this and we can't support it.
Speaker 1:So, had she even been paying attention slightly, she would have seen that, unless, of course, it was by design, unless the reason why they did it in the first place was so that this could happen. Because, on the flip side of it, we now have Elon Musk was giving Nazi salutes on national TV and people are just pretending it's not a Nazi salute and then blaming him and saying he has autism. But, as you pointed out, you know, then he's a genius at the same time who has all these great skills, who can just, you know, root out all the evil in our government. I mean, it's just, it's absurd, it's a circus.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. And before I get into that, there's like a crazy squeaking sound coming from your end.
Speaker 1:Oh, I think it's the table. Hold on, let me fix it. Okay, I think it's the table. Hold on, let me fix it, okay. I actually don't know what it is, but if you hear it again, let me know. I thought it was the table, but I moved the table and it's not doing anything.
Speaker 2:Okay, okay. Where were you talking about Elon?
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that his Nazi salute. Yes, that wasn't really a Nazi salute.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1:And I mean that sarcastically, because it clearly was.
Speaker 2:Right, of course, and so the level of dissonance that comes from people like I've seen this a lot on Twitter, because unfortunately I'm still on Twitter.
Speaker 1:I think it's valuable to see what's going on there. You are still on Twitter. Are you kidding me? I am. I canceled it the day he took over, I canceled it.
Speaker 2:No, I stayed on because I kind of wanted to see what was going to happen, and let me tell you it is a hellscape. I mean, it is just sponsored post after sponsored post of right-wing propaganda, and on top of that he's created a United States of America account. That is just entirely Trump-sold nonsense. But with that it's also full of people who constantly defend him. You know, something like the Nazi salute saying that you know, oh, he's, he's autistic, he's on the spectrum, so his body language might not translate to us, but in the same breath say that he is so hyper aware of everything that's going on that he's competent to oversee federal agencies and to strip millions of dollars of funding from agencies who need resource for social service. I mean, it is absolutely backwards thinking, and to not observe the dissonance between those two ideas is pretty insane to me. I don't know how to cope with it.
Speaker 1:And I know yours. I just want to clarify what you. I just want to clarify what you said for for people who might be listening. So it's not the fact that he's autistic that means that he can't do it. It's the, it's the dissonance between the fact that they're saying that he can do a Nazi salute and not know that that's an issue, but then he could read people well enough in other scenarios to then do all of this like government, take, you know, control and fixing which. Those two things are clearly not true, because a lot of people who are within the autistic community have come out and been very upset about it, saying like listen, we know not to give a Nazi salute, like that's, that's a bunch of BS and and.
Speaker 1:But again, his supporters and they do it on both sides, you know, oh, he didn't mean it. Oh, he didn't know what he was doing, much like they did with Trump in the first election. He could stand on TV and say I'm going to shoot somebody in the middle of, you know, downtown, new York and nobody's going to care. Oh, he didn't mean it. That's not really what he meant, you know. And it's the same thing with Biden-Harris. I mean, people were just like that's not really what they meant, like they're defending these ideologies that are very toxic, absolutely.
Speaker 1:If you want to understand, if you want people to understand you, you have to first understand them, and we are not, as a society, willing to do that. We're becoming more polarized, and each side is just saying, like you have to understand me and that's it, like my way is right and there's no other option. But that's not true. Like if, if you really want, if you want unity, which is the only way we are going to fix this mess that we are in, that we have all contributed to creating, is we have to stop and say, okay, let's stop fighting against each other, let's stop tearing each other apart on social media, let's stop cutting people out because we don't agree who they voted for, and maybe understand why in the first place. And then maybe, if we understand why, we can try to then fix it and come to some sort of resolution, instead of this nonstop tribalism that, if you ask me, starts with sports. That's a whole, not that's a whole.
Speaker 2:Another episode, though oh, I'd love to hear about that. But, uh, first of all I want to thank you for clarifying that. I was not trying to say that, uh, having autism makes him incompetent to be in the position that he is, but rather the excusing his bizarre behavior with autism is the issue at hand and what you were saying after that goes into what I was saying earlier, with people identifying so closely with their politics. I hadn't heard that quote before, but I really, really enjoy that because the need to be right, if that's overtaking your actual sense of justice and and duty to to find policy or find ideology that actually aligns with your values, rather than sticking by what you believe simply because it's what you have believed, I mean, you're doing nobody a service, not even yourself, and so I think it's vital for us to really lose that identification, excuse me, to lose that identification with our political ideology, and instead be willing to new, to accept new ideas.
Speaker 1:I agree with you, we do have to new to to accept new ideas. I agree with you, we do have to. We have to stop being divided. We have to really start understanding each other.
Speaker 1:I wanted to give another example of something that I that kind of prompted me to think what the heck is going on? How do people not see how absurd this is? So you, you and I, have been very vocal about the genocide that's been happening in Gaza pretty much the entire time, and actually I remember when it first happened, when everything happened with October 7th. Shortly thereafter, I did my first episode about genocide on it and at the time the person, wendy that I was doing the podcast with, was really uncomfortable talking about it because she didn't. My assumption is, actually we hadn't talked to her about it, but she seemed like she did not want to voice an opinion about it because she didn't. My assumption is, actually we hadn't talked to her about it, but she seemed like she did not want to voice an opinion about it being an actual genocide. And I get that people were very much like nervous about it, but it is what it is and it is a genocide. You cannot call it anything but that, and you know I I wish I was more vocal back then. I mean, I think even just kind of talking about it was was more than a lot of people were doing. But I think I backed down myself in the beginning because I was a little bit nervous, but now like no, I'm not going to be silent on China side.
Speaker 1:But what stood out to me about that was Congressman Al Green in Texas has put up a bill of impeachment against Trump because quote these came out of his mouth Ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not a joke, unquote. And then quote injustice to Gaza is a threat to the United States. Close quote that's what he talked about in the articles of impeachment. So my first question is where the hell were you when we were actually killing people? Where was he? Because trump saying he wants to take over gaza and build hotels there, whatever the hell he said, whatever nonsense came out of his mouth, is certainly ridiculous, but it's not funding a genocide. So if funding a genocide wasn't a big enough bar for you to do an article of impeachment, but somebody just mentioning it is enough, there's a problem there. So that prompted me to go back, because I don't know a lot about Al Green. I don't live in Texas. So I went back and I said, OK, what was his stance on what was happening in Gaza then? Because maybe he did and I just didn't hear about it. So he isn't. He isn't an AIPAC lobbyist recipient. I will say that right there.
Speaker 1:He didn't take as much as many of the others, but he did receive money and in March of 2024, he gave a speech which I thought was very equivalent to I'm writing a very strong letter to the president, while having a picture of a child victim in Gaza in the background.
Speaker 1:And he not only mentioned how much he respected Benjamin Netanyahu twice, and actually kind of alluded to it to a third time.
Speaker 1:He did not seem to.
Speaker 1:And you know, yada, yada, yada, and he was going on about, um, you know that israel's right to exist, where it's really the, you know, the people have a right to exist, not a country, but that's a whole other issue, and he really was kind of making all these excuses, and it wasn't until the very end of his speech and he actually did say another thing.
Speaker 1:He said if you choose, be blind, no one can make you see it which you can apply to what he was talking about himself, because he's also kind of being this disingenuous person. He did start to become a little bit more accountable towards the end of his speech and he said that he recognized that what was happening there was wrong and that all these people were being killed, and then talked about how we should give them millions of dollars in reparation because our tax money did fund that, but then ended it with also admitting that he has he had co-signed giving an excess of 50 billion dollars to Israel. So I think you said earlier it was going to cost what 50 billion dollars to rebuild Gaza.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think the UN estimate was 53 billion billion to rebuild Gaza. Yeah, I think the UN estimate was $53 billion.
Speaker 1:It's interesting that we're going to give them millions, not billions millions for what we did and while it's actively happening, we're not going to throw up articles of impeachment because that would, I don't know, not make sense to whoever's funding them, but then post that when it's done for the most part done and maybe that's not a good choice, I think.
Speaker 2:No, but when the damage is done.
Speaker 1:You're right, when the damage is done and I sort of again, people know I've been actively defending God the whole time so when the damage is done, then we're going to come in and we're going to be like, oh bad Trump, because of something he said, let's impeach him. You know, and again I'm not defending him, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and the idiocy of, like, what actually happened and that people don't see it. They're just kind of looking at it and they're being like, oh look, how great he is for calling out Trump. I'm sorry, I'm sorry what?
Speaker 2:Right. I mean you want to talk about dissonance. I mean, in the same speech, to praise Benjamin Netanyahu, and then go on to say that you support giving $50 billion to Israel, or, sorry, to say that you support Benjamin Netanyahu, want to give $50 billion to Israel, and also that what you think is are funding the tragedy. You are a direct cause of the tragedy, so how can you stand up there and say with your full chest that this is something that you are horrified by? I? You had a year and a half to do the same exact thing while it was happening, to stop it before it got as bad as it did, before the entire Gaza Strip was leveled and millions of people were displaced, hundreds of thousands of people killed. It is absolutely appalling behavior.
Speaker 1:Yeah, 100% appalling behavior. You know what? And it makes me think of the pivotal turning point for me with Harris and every time I think of it it makes me want to vomit is when she was. She gave that speech to AIPAC and she came out and she was like good morning, aipac. And it's like sing songy voice. I literally wanted to vomit because it was at that point that I realized like no, like no-transcript, posting things like when they came for this person, nobody paid attention. When they came for that person, nobody paid attention. But then when they came for me, nobody was left. Uh, again the level of cognitive resistance. Like you are literally posting what you are ignoring and then pretending that you just can't deal with it. And then, when it happens, who are you going to blame? You're going to be blaming everybody else around you. Oh, everybody else should have done something. It's, it's, I don't know.
Speaker 2:No, and I've. I've seen a lot of that on social media myself. Again back to Twitter. I've seen a lot of people, I've seen a lot of people who have been conversely on the left, people who have been saying, oh, people who didn't vote for Kamala, are you happy now? Are you happy that Trump's going to turn the Gaza Strip into a billionaire paradise? And to think that that's not what we were saying all along, as though this isn't exactly what we were predicting. You are missing the point entirely, which, essentially, was that both party candidates are going to perpetuate the same result, and so, by acting in accordance with the party beliefs or party unison, just for the sake of it, you are not helping anybody. I mean, you want to talk about harm reduction. Harm reduction for who? Certainly not for the people of Gaza.
Speaker 1:Exactly. I don't know how you can then not call yourself racist if you are saying an entire group of people don't matter, and not even the people that are in Gaza, like if you I mean if you can compartmentalize it and say like, okay, they're over there, that's not happening here, I don't, I'm going to pretend I don't know any of them Then what about their relatives that live here, that you're looking at them and basically saying, like your family doesn't matter? How is that not racist, just in itself, saying an entire group of people don't matter enough to warrant our attention?
Speaker 2:Exactly it is. It is to me a real, uh, scary, real, scary, real life manifestation of how people dehumanize black and brown people around the world. Because, truly, when you get down to it, if this were happening in a white country, in a European country, the outrage would be astronomical. If Israel invaded, say, italy, for example, obviously I don't think that's a real possibility. Say like italy for, for example, obviously I don't think that's like a real possibility. But uh, just as an example, I mean, could you imagine the collective outrage globally that would be, that would, that would come, and especially from the united states. I mean, this is something that is is so indicative of the deep-seated racist ideology that runs throughout our country italy is my favorite place in the world.
Speaker 1:I'm just saying I had to say that I can't stop. Like god. I want to go back there. So bad. If I could move there in a heartbeat, I would.
Speaker 2:Oh Italy yeah, I was really just trying to trigger you.
Speaker 1:You weren't no, that's funny. I actually wanted to add to that. I forgot what I wanted to say.
Speaker 2:There was something I wanted to add to let me think I said collective outrage if this were happening to a white country.
Speaker 1:I actually wanted to add to that. I forgot what I wanted to say. There was something I wanted to add to. Let me think I said collective outrage if this were happening to a white country. Oh, I know what it is, I know what it is, okay, yes, so, speaking of your favorite platform, twitter, the other thing I've been seeing a lot of selective outrage with, and I do think it's virtue signaling and I I'm probably gonna get into a lot of trouble for this, but the amount of people that are angry about dei and then boycotting companies that are getting rid of dei but didn't boycott those same companies for killing people right.
Speaker 2:I mean, well, actually hold on before we get into that. What do you mean by by killing people? Genocide, like for like. Oh, oh, I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1:No, no, no. So, for example, like when I was telling people, okay, to boycott these well, it wasn't just me. But when people were saying like, okay, boycott Starbucks because they're directly funding genocide, or Disney, which I used to support all the time and I haven't been to since, and people are like, oh, that's stupid. Oh, that's stupid, just go, just go. A DEI program and I'm not arguing for a DEI either way, but I'm saying getting rid of a DEI program is not committing mass genocide. So if your bar is that somebody is not going to get a job and that's your bar for boycotting the company, what happens when somebody is not getting a job because you're murdering them, that is suddenly not a bar. I don't know. This is what I mean by selective outrage.
Speaker 2:People are picking topics and just saying like, oh, I'm so against that, I'm going to fight for that, when in reality, the biggest thing we should be fighting, people are ignoring 100% and it really to me feels like just, uh, you know, stroking your own ego, making, making yourself feel good for your own self-righteousness, because, like, uh, it's funny, I had this conversation with a family member the other day where, um, because I, I, personally, I, uh, I, throughout the week I'll have a couple coca-colas, usually, uh, and that's a company that, um, uh, just recently got rid of their dei policies. And so, uh, this family member said to me, like, oh, you know, it's time for you to start boycotting. And I said, said, well, I've seen you get Starbucks multiple times over the past year. I've been boycotting them for years now, actually prior to the genocide, simply because I just don't enjoy what they stand for as a company. But with that I think I'm so sorry my dog is freaking out again. I'll be right back.
Speaker 2:So this that actually reminds me of, you know, a family member that I was speaking with the other day genocide, and with that I mean Starbucks is a company I've been boycotting long before the genocide, simply because I don't really agree with a lot of their ethical choices. But to your point of the dissonance there, where it's selective outrage, of which company are you going to boycott, when one got rid of DEI policy and the other is actively funding participating in genocide. So when you pick and choose like that, it really I mean to me there's no credit or merit in what you are actually saying, the point you're trying to make.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I 100% agree with you and to me, when I boycott a company because of a moral issue, I'm done with them. I don't go back a little bit later on when they decide to become moral no, I don't do it. So I mean I've been boy like Walmart's another one, really. People are calling for the boycott of Walmart. Now I've been boycotting Walmart for I don't know a decade. So because they they're terrible. I mean they have terrible family policies. I mean they're awful to people with disabilities. I mean they're a sexist company.
Speaker 1:There's so many things wrong with Walmart that I would never support them anyway. But people just pick and choose, like they decide what you know what is morally outrageous and what isn't All, while at the same time claiming that they have moral, moral high ground and that they're superior to everybody else. Because they are. I mean, I guarantee you, the loudest people on Facebook have not once contacted their senator, has not once contacted the congressman, but are sitting there like keyboard warriors, flipping out over everything and it's, it's just disheartening.
Speaker 1:I remember when I made a comment about I think I mentioned this on another episode there was a person that I was friends with on facebook, that I actually didn't know, but a very religious person. I actually think he was a priest or something he was. He was somehow. He was in one of the church units to begin with, or whatever. And um, I had made a comment about what was happening on the genocide and he did a laughing emoji that is appalling so I immediately deleted and blocked him because I mean that is something that I'm not going to have any tolerance for.
Speaker 1:I know I earlier I said, you know, but something like that, because that's a moral issue, that that isn't a lack of education. I mean, if you can laugh at people being killed, I don't want anything to do with you, that is. That is a point I think you've hit where education is not going to fix that.
Speaker 2:That's just a fundamental issue yeah, I I do agree with that because I mean, to an extent, you know, or rather I think there is a certain extent to which the the whole understanding each other's perspectives uh reaches, and when you, when you find someone with murderous beliefs, with with uh fundamentally bigoted and and really genocidal beliefs, I mean that's really tough to come to a moral standing with all at the same time, while being a good, good christian who's like leading other people right.
Speaker 1:I think that was also part of it for me, that I was like Nope, nope, nope.
Speaker 2:Nope, yeah. And again it ties into the idea of the self-righteousness you know. I mean picking and choosing what makes you feel the best about your beliefs and what makes you feel like you are the most justified. If your beliefs come down to what makes you feel the best, then ultimately you are not serving anybody but yourself. So so what moral, moral high ground do you really have? Yeah, I.
Speaker 1:I a hundred percent agree with you and I, you know, I I do believe in karma. I do think that it, what we do, does come back to you. And you know I mentioned the quote about Martin Luther King how he said if you sit back and watch evil, you're evil. I think I've mentioned this before as a pagan. We have the same beliefs that you reap what you sow. So if you sit back and you watch evil happen, you are just as evil as the people that are doing it. And that is across party lines, it's across beliefs. I mean, if you see something bad happening and you don't do anything, you are basically doing it too. And I think that doesn't just carry to things that you like it's. It needs to be across the board, like, if you don't, you know if it's, if it's bad, you stand up to it absolutely, and you know it's funny, this is an idea that they teach from like grade school.
Speaker 2:You know, the person who watches the bully is just as bad as the bully. That's something that I remember being taught in like fifth grade or sixth grade. And for people to you know now, as adults, stand by a harmful ideology simply because or rather, to not stand by it, but to to stand idly by it, simply because it makes them uncomfortable to address it or it doesn't align with other beliefs that they might have, I mean, you are just as bad as the person who actively perpetuates it.
Speaker 1:You actually brought up a great comparison with bullying. So think about the hypocrisy and the cognitive dissonance that goes along with that, and everybody knows that listens to this. I do teach, so I mean I certainly support teachers and this is not a dig at teachers, this is a dig at the system. But you have you just said, like you're told over and over again, if you see somebody bullying, you stand up to them, because if you don't, you're part of the problem. And then we have the zero tolerance policy for bullying and in my experience from working with lots of families who had kids that were bullied, it was the victim who was then perpetrated by the school, not the bully. So you have, you know, you have this message stand up to the bully, what you do. If you don't, you're wrong. But then the system defends the person doing it, which is the same system telling people to stand up against it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you know, actually, even though I'm the one who said it, I kind of I don't think I realized how much of a microcosm that is of like the societal issue at hand, where, exactly like you said, the victim is the one who ends up under the microscope and examined and blamed for the issue at hand, when really we just need to address the bully.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, we see this everywhere. It's like the other one that people have very much talked about, which is, you know, teaching, instead of teaching women how not to get raped, teaching men how to not rape women, right, like it's this. And we see this in everything where the victim becomes the object of the change. Like it's the victim who is responsible for what's happening. Like you think back to when I think I might be misquoting this, but I'm fairly certain it was ben shapiro who makes my skin crawl. Some people are just evil. You can tell they're evil. He's one of them. When the whole october 7th thing first happened and somebody was questioning him about if he thought babies babies that were there deserved to be killed, and he said, well, did they denounce him, us? And it was like, oh, so it's the baby's fault. Now, right, like so we. We have this thing where we, where we target the victim as the problem absolutely, you're, you're totally correct.
Speaker 2:Uh, and I feel like you know ben shapiro. I mean, he's his own can of worms. Oh, I think. I think he's just a deeply closeted man who's angry at everyone else for it. I would, that's another can. I closeted man who's angry at everyone else for it? I would, that's another can I would agree with that.
Speaker 1:There were very few people that make me want to vomit when I look at them. He's one of them, trump's, another one, mitch mcconnell because they just, they just exude evil. It just seeps out of their skin. Even elon musk does that. Like there's this. Just like. If you you know what they say when, when somebody shows you who they are the first time, believe them, right. So when somebody comes out and they literally are wearing a mask of like something evil, just believe them because that's who they are. Don't like second guess it.
Speaker 2:Right, absolutely, I mean and that also again goes back to the cognitive distance that we were speaking about because you have these people who show their true colors and you'll have the people who come to their defense and say, oh no, they didn't mean it, they don't know what they were doing. These are people who are not in the positions that they're in by accident. They know very much what they're doing and it's very intentional. So for the average person to come running to their defense is really baffling to me and, I think, shows the level of indoctrination that they've been susceptible to.
Speaker 1:Right and for the people that are listening, I mean to be fair and I can't speak for you, mike I know that I was also part of that indoctrination because it's hard to not be sucked into it when everybody around you is kind of in that same thing. But there's, we have to really start self examining and look at that and say like, okay, how am I contributing to the problem? So last night I pulled out um, I have a goddess deck. I always I pull out cards randomly, like once a month, to give me like a message. And last night I pulled out kuan yin, and kuan yin is the goddess of compassion and mercy, and the focus of it was all about like, if you're not practicing kindness, like you have to look at yourself and say like, how do I, how would kindness and empathy help the situation? And I I think that if we could all do that and we would be in a lot better place.
Speaker 1:But we just we just fundamentally as a society, are so broken by design because the only way to stop power is to divide it. I mean, if you think about it, I mean we really are the majority. I mean if the if we want to change as a country we could. We could create that change if we were all, if we were all united. But you know, it's interesting, I think everything that has the word united in it, like United Healthcare, united Airlines, like you know, like I swear, like the word united now is almost it's it's like a misnomer on so many levels.
Speaker 2:So true, but I mean to your point, I think you are. You are totally, entirely right. I think the division that we experience as a nation and by we as a nation I do refer to the bottom class of people, the 90 percent of people who don't make millions or billions of dollars I think our division is very intentional and I think it's a tool. You know, it serves a purpose, and if we really want to examine how we can actually fight for the things that truly are of common benefit, we need to examine not just the political issues that we're faced with, but also the division itself and why that's there. I think if we were all unified, that would be a very scary thing for the ruling class, and so with that, there is this perpetual need for our division, and I think people need to keep that in mind when engaging with really any sort of political discussion or the viewing of any sort of political action.
Speaker 1:To bring it back to what I'd mentioned before about tribalism and how it starts with sports, and we don't have to get into this. But you see that I think that's one of the areas where it started, where people who are fans of sports teams riot and fight against each other when their team wins or loses. It's a freaking game, but people become so feral over it and so divided and violent over it, Right? So I mean, I do think it starts with things like that and then it just becomes increasingly more insidious. I mean, think about how much money is made off that versus how much money goes into education no-transcript by the way, I do have to say I'm incredibly disappointed with um the.
Speaker 1:So, if you I'm. I think we talked about this, but you may have listened to the last episode where we had the last two episodes. I'm sorry, no, but three episodes where we had veterinarian students talking about what was going on in their world and how the veterinarian code of ethics was not complying with stopping genocide. I'm really disappointed that the nasw has not given a stance on genocide at all. They've completely been silent on the whole thing, which is the absolute antithesis of what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be fighting against oppression and looking for justice, but they have said nothing 100%.
Speaker 2:I mean, when you look at the core pillars of social justice, it's kind of unfathomable to think that the National Association of Social Workers has not taken a stance to denounce a genocide. I mean that should be the absolute bare minimum. I mean you think about excuse me while I gather my thoughts when you think about the idea of a national association that's supposed to propel social justice and equity, it does not make any fathomable sense that they cannot even acknowledge a genocide. And the NASW does have, in honesty, a shady history in terms of actually propelling socially progressive ideology, even back in the civil rights movement too.
Speaker 1:Oh, I'm not surprised by that, and that's you know. When you talk about the follow the stakeholders, I think that applies in our, in our field as well. The stakeholders I think that applies in our field as well, Like I think it applies in all of them. I mean, they all kind of lead back to very similar sources, and that's the bigger issue. But instead of focusing on those sources, we focus on fighting against the people who are being affected by the problems.
Speaker 2:Exactly, exactly. I mean, ultimately, the system that we are in is one that is designed to reap the most amount of resource out of the people who work to generate it, and so, regardless of what industry or field that's in, uh, the end game is is the same, and and the result will always be the same, unless we actually work to change the system itself I had somebody that was a listener asked if she had said one of the things that might be helpful is if we gave some suggestions at the end of episodes on to what you can do or like how you can help to change things.
Speaker 1:So the one suggestion I can think of is to go back to what I said about Kuan Yin earlier, which is that I think if you can go as a person, if you can go out of your way to try to talk to somebody you don't agree with and understand understand their perspective don't try to change their mind. Don't go in there and say, like I need to prove that I'm right. If you were to go in there and say, okay, I really want to understand you, I think that would be one way to impact positive change. That's my opinion.
Speaker 2:I really agree, and on top of that I would add, this kind of goes back to, actually, the point that I made at the end of the post-election episode.
Speaker 2:But I think we really need to get more in touch with our communities. I think we need to become more involved with local policy and politics and really work to understand at a local level what's happening with people, because, ultimately, our communities are a microcosm of what's happening nationally. And if you can connect with people, uh to actually make real change within your, your level of um engagement, or rather to engage with, like your level of um of government, if that makes sense, then I think it's it's a really powerful means of actually being able to create social change. So, whether that looks like going to town, town council meetings, town halls, uh, speaking up to local legislators, writing to them I mean, there are so many ways that you can get in contact with people who are in positions of power, uh, and to make your voice heard, uh, and with that, to organize with other people in your community in order to advocate for everyone's best interests.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I would. The only thing I would add to that and I think again, community action is really important is because the only way that because I mean, let's face it, the politician's job is to get reelected. It is not about actually making change but if enough people come together to guarantee that they're not going to get reelected, if they don't make change, then that's going to force their hand. So I think we to your point about raising community awareness we need to do that and we need to. But that also means that people have to compromise, because they can't go in and say, okay, I want community support, here's what I'm, here's what I want, and that's what I want, and that's it. Like that's what I want and that's it. Like that's not going to work. Like you need to be in there saying like, here's what I want, but I'm willing to compromise on these issues to give you what you want as well.
Speaker 2:That's the only way that's going to happen, absolutely. We need to work with each other to identify our common goals, common interests and what best serves us, and so I really think it's important to look for organizing opportunities that we can come together and use the collective power that we truly have and are not meant to use within the system, to make sure that the people in power do know we are the stakeholders when you really come down to it, and we are the ones who will get you elected or will oust you from office.
Speaker 2:Yeah, if we do that Right If we do that.
Speaker 1:Well, thank you again, Mike, for being here. I really appreciate it, and for all the listeners. I hope you enjoyed the episode and, again, feel free to email me with any feedback or any episodes that you want. So until next time. Thank you again for listening. This is just a reminder that no part of this podcast can be duplicated or copied without written consent from either myself or Wendy. Thank you again.
