Who Were The MAGA Rioters?

[Vrubel]

@Forestluv I agree with most of your points and respect your worldview. A few things though: 

21 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

That's great. Yet if we do that, we need to include it all. Yes, there are poetic aspects of the South. The architecture, cuisine, hospitality and landscapes can be poetic. Yet our poem also needs to include things like glorification of slave traders, religious fundamentalism, homophobia and discrimination. That is also part of the south.

 

22 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

No, it wasn't abundantly clear. You challenged me on whether racist, homophobic, conspiracy views etc. are common in the rural areas and asked me to "prove you wrong" with "hard data". Now you seem to be saying "I called out all the bad stuff, but there is also a lot of good stuff! too". That is a different position. 

This is what I said: "I see the South as America’s battered slow learning rebel kid that has historically embodied much of America’s darkest aspects. From slavery, decimation after the civil war, race relations, and consistent abject poverty. All of these abuses combined with the humanity, good and musicality of the people, give the land a certain character and poetry."

I encompass it all and deny nothing. I was open from the beginning: If for example there is proof that 90% of southerners are homophobic, I have no problem with accepting that and seeing it as problematic. Though my larger point of understanding and not dehumanizing still stands.

 

27 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

You claim the good aspects are often ignored, yet an argument can be made that the bad aspects are ignored. How else can the glorification of slave traders through massive statues still exist in community parks? The only way is by ignoring the history and impact of these statues. 

Confederate Generals were not slave traders. Robert E. Lee was famously against slavery.

 

 

[DocWatts]

27 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Confederate Generals were not slave traders. Robert E. Lee was famously against slavery.

Kind of a moot point since they fought a war to protect the interests of Slave Owners.

Edited February 14, 2021 by DocWatts

[Forestluv]

55 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

@Forestluv 

I encompass it all and deny nothing. I was open from the beginning: If for example there is proof that 90% of southerners are homophobic, I have no problem with accepting that and seeing it as problematic.

90% homophobic is your bar for accepting and seeing it as problematic? That sounds like it's coming from a straight person that doesn't have to deal with homophobic crap. . . So if only 60% of a community was solid homophobic and gay people experienced harassment, abuse and discrimination everyday, you wouldn't accept and see that as "problematic". I think if you were a gay man living in a rural area of the south, you would see things very differently.

55 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Confederate Generals were not slave traders. Robert E. Lee was famously against slavery.

These are gaslighting myths to whitewash history. Confederate Generals, including Robert E. Lee, owned slaves and were involved with slave trade. 

The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together. . . Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one. It provided the foundation for South to build the Jim Crow system. 

White supremacy was one of Lee’s most fundamental convictions. Lee was a slave owner—his own views on slavery were explicated in an 1856 letter that is often misquoted to give the impression that Lee was some kind of abolitionist.

"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy."

The argument here is that slavery is bad for white people, good for black people, and most important, better than abolitionism; emancipation must wait for divine intervention. That black people might not want to be slaves does not enter into the equation; their opinion on the subject of their own bondage is not even an afterthought to Lee.

As well, Lee himself owned slaves and his cruelty to slaves was documented by Lee's own writing and others in books such as Reading the Man and The Battle Cry of Freedom.

A few examples:

-- Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families by hiring them off to other plantations, and by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate. The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, The trauma of rupturing families lasted lifetimes and generations for the enslaved. After emancipation, freed slaves desperately tried to find their family members, yet rarely succeeded. 

-- Lee's brutality on his Virginia plantation nearly led to a slave revolt, in part because the enslaved had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death, and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property, one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.

-- When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

-- During his invasion of Pennsylvania, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia enslaved free black Americans and brought them back to the South as property.

-- Under Lee’s command, black Union soldiers that were captured were tortured and executed. 

-- Lee is primarily responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black.

-- After the war, Lee stated that the war arose out of Christian devotion that white southerners fought to keep black people enslaved. . . . Lee had beaten or ordered his own slaves to be beaten for the crime of wanting to be free; he fought for the preservation of slavery; his army kidnapped free black people at gunpoint and made them unfree—but all of this, he insisted, had occurred only because of the great Christian love the South held for black Americans. This provided foundation for the "Lost Cause" narrative and helped the south to build the Jim Crow. 

And on and on. . . Robert E. Lee was a white supremacist with a long history of brutality to black people. Whitewashing Lee and other confederate generals also whitewashes the civil war, slavery and Jim Crow. 

One reason the U.S. is still mired in lingering effects of slavery is because a lot of white people will not take an honest look at what happened and how that created systemic racism / white supremacy that still exists today. Direct lines can be drawn from slavery to current systemic racism. And whitewashing slavery, confederate generals and the civil war prevents us from seeing clearly and making progress. 

[Vrubel]

16 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

90% homophobic is your bar for accepting and seeing it as problematic? That sounds like it's coming from a straight person that doesn't have to deal with homophobic crap. . . So if only 60% of a community was solid homophobic and gay people experienced harassment, abuse and discrimination everyday, you wouldn't accept and see that as "problematic". I think if you were a gay man living in a rural area of the south, you would see things very differently.

What!? are you even reading what I write? Please stop this projection.

 

[Vrubel]

@Forestluv I will look into your Robert E. Lee arguments and hopefully I will be able to reply or even start a new thread tomorrow. Going to bed now(;

[mandyjw]

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I read an interesting book recently which goes in to detail about how culture at different levels of development use different emotional regimes to enforce norms and behaviors. Whereas roughly SD-Stage Red societies primarily use the emotional regime of Fear to motivate behavior, as you move up the spiral that eventually changes to Guilt (SD-Stage Blue), Shame (SD-Stage Orange). Once you reach roughly SD-Stage Green, there's not really a great English word for it, but the emotional regime is that of trying to avoid provoking the envy of others (such as avoiding ostentatious displays of wealth, and so on).

That's an incredible insight, I've a been thinking about that a lot recently how we avoid feeling envy because we judge ourselves as bad when we feel it, and thus suppress emotion, feeling and avoid admitting to ourselves, and discovering what it is that we really want. 

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

White people have the privilege of choosing a perspective that feels good, yet minorities that carry the burden don't have that priviledge. 

That way of thinking is disempowering. Everyone has the power to pick a better feeling perspective no matter what their situation. Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning is an extreme, yet extremely powerful example. As a woman, overcoming the feeling of anger and disempowerment and realizing that I always have within me the power to find a thought that feels better than what I'm currently focusing on has been incredibly key in all situations when I have forgotten who I really am, for example if I'm focusing on some disempowering, misogynist comment for example. 

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Recognizing and acknowledging truth is distinct from shame and guilt. I'm not adding in shame and guilt, you are. 

I'm responding to the basic notion of several of the comments on this first page, which in my opinion, are very shaming and perpetuate a sense that "these people are not worth our time to get to know or understand".  Sorry if I lumped you in with that general consensus here that I was sensing. 

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

If we want to empower minorities, how about we actually give them some power? Rather than give them platitudes about how "all people are created equal" and "you can be anything you want in life" - how about we give them actual power? How about we give minorities real power to make decisions and create laws and policies? How about we create inheritance tax and redistribute wealth to minorities that have been structurally suppressed from accumulating generational wealth? How about we create minority equity in government, so that they get a real say and power in regards to systemic racism issues such as policing? Platitudes about equal opportunity and how we can all be anything we want if we work hard may give a sense of feeling good to the privilege, yet it does little good for those who carry a burden.

Because TRUE power is already yours, it's inherent in your very being and essence and it's nothing that you need to wait around for anyone to give you. Anything anyone gives you will mean nothing to you unless you can find and line up with your own feeling of worthiness. I'm not saying that things shouldn't change to empower women or minorities in MANY ways, but I'm saying that everyone, no matter what, deserves to feel worthy of love. When we line up with that, the other changes we wish to seek will fall in line, they have to. 

We've had a black President. We've had a President who talked about having the right to grab pussies just cause you're famous and got elected anyway. No women yet though. Should I focus on this shitty, awful feeling, yet objectively very TRUE perspective? Or should I find one that feels better and focus on all the amazing powerful women who inspire me? What would you suggest to me? 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by mandyjw

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

What!? are you even reading what I write? Please stop this projection.

You wrote:

1 hour ago, Vrubel said:

If for example there is proof that 90% of southerners are homophobic, I have no problem with accepting that and seeing it as problematic. 

I responded:

28 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

90% homophobic is your bar for accepting and seeing it as problematic?

[Vrubel]

@Forestluv I meant accepting the staggering data off course. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

That way of thinking is disempowering. Everyone has the power to pick a better feeling perspective no matter what their situation. Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning is an extreme, yet extremely powerful example.

That does nothing to address the issue of structural racism and making structural changes toward a society with more equity.

How is actually giving people power disempowering? For example, inner city black people are unjustly profiled by police and in court systems. How does saying "choose a better feeling when you get screwed over by police and the justice system" going to correct those systemic problems? How is it disempowering to give poc the power to actually change the system so it stops screwing them over?

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

I'm responding to the basic notion of several of the comments on this first page, which in my opinion, are very shaming and perpetuate a sense that "these people are not worth our time to get to know or understand".  Sorry if I lumped you in with that general consensus here that I was sensing. 

I agree that the caricatures where distorted and included implicit shaming. 

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

 I'm saying that everyone, no matter what, deserves to feel worthy of love. When we line up with that, the other changes we wish to seek will fall in line, they have to. 

I agree that changing hearts and minds is a key component. In my view, it is necessary yet is overly idealistic and would take an extremely long time to implement. Progress involves both bottom-up grassroots hearts and minds, as well as top-down policy changes. For example, those wanting equality for gay people spent decades trying to change hearts and minds. This was important, yet insufficient. Even though gay rights and same-sex marriage had minority support, courts started implementing laws to protect gay couples and states started enacting same-sex marriage, followed by the federal level. Creating these laws (against majority opinion) massively shifted public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage. A generation worth of progress was made in a few years. 

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

We've had a Black President. We've had a President who talks about grabbing pussies and got elected anyway. No women yet though. Should I focus on this shitty, awful feeling, yet objectively very TRUE perspective? Or should I find one that feels better and focus on all the amazing powerful women who inspire me?

I agree that what you are pointing at is disempowering. An attitude of "this sucks, I feel awful, why bother" is a disempowering mindset. No one would want to take action to promote greater equality with such a mindset. I think it's great to focus on good feelings, positives and LOA type stuff. Yet there are also other dynamics. 

We can empower and condition ourselves to feel good. Yet with that comes responsibility (assuming the existence of a person that can take responsibility) . For example, one of my students come to class in person yet. She has been viewing online since the first day of class. She recently emailed me that she has PTSD of male authority figures and she is terrified of coming to class because she might spiral into a panic attack. There are many different ways I can relate to this situation. Some ways would yield bad feelings, some ways would yield good feelings and some ways yield a mixture of feelings. Assuming that I have "choice", I won't choose a relationship that would yield me good feelings at her expense. I'm not going to choose a path that I feel good exerting my authority over her. I'm not going to choose a path where I feel good by ignoring her situation and pretending she is happy. The highest (relative) path for me is to have empathy and love for her. I know what it's like to spiral into uncontrollable panic attacks. To feel good that she was able to be vulnerable with me and tell me that. To love her as she is right now, even if she is terrified of me and never comes to class or has a breakthrough. To be supportive of her however I can. Yet I also acknowledge that a man in authority did horrific things to her that caused damage and suffering. I don't feel so good about that, yet I won't dwell on it. I will focus on being loving and supportive. Yet my love and support for her will not address the man who abused her, a society that allows men in authority to abuse and a society that lacks resources to help men that abuse. There is a very high likelihood that the man (or men) that abuse her were themselves abused. 

[Forestluv]

 

1 hour ago, Vrubel said:

@Forestluv I meant accepting the staggering data off course. 

2 hours ago, Vrubel said:

If for example there is proof that 90% of southerners are homophobic, I have no problem with accepting that and seeing it as problematic. 

 

 

[Hardkill]

This is getting outrageous. 

There's this is one guy whom I've known for several years who recently told me that the guy in the image I attached down below was secretly a member of Antifa who disguised himself as a MAGA rioter. Yet, if you look on the official Antifa website, you would see that that guy in the image is or was actually one of racists that Antifa targeted. It's really scary and infuriating how many more people are showing themselves to be not as smart as I hoped or expected them to be.

[Willie]

3 hours ago, mandyjw said:

We've had a black President. We've had a President who talked about having the right to grab pussies just cause you're famous and got elected anyway. No women yet though. Should I focus on this shitty, awful feeling, yet objectively very TRUE perspective? Or should I find one that feels better and focus on all the amazing powerful women who inspire me? What would you suggest to me? 

Chances are looking pretty good for a President Kamala Harris next election cycle!

[Preety_India]

2 hours ago, Willie said:

Chances are looking pretty good for a President Kamala Harris next election cycle!

America will never choose an Indian woman as a president. 

That would be antithetical to everything American. 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Preety_India

[Arcangelo]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

secretly a member of Antifa who disguised himself as a MAGA rioter.

I said it first. But I was kidding. But who knows? Nobody that's who.

[Vrubel]

@Forestluv I will stop my discussion right here. I feel your projection and confirmation bias is so thick, you don't even have the ability anymore to interpret my words in the way I mean them. 
Never did I say that 90% is my bar for homophobia to be problematic. If you are not putting in the effort to be fair to me and to even see my points. Why should I continue on?

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Vrubel said:

@Forestluv 
Never did I say that 90% is my bar for homophobia to be problematic. 

I never claimed that was your bar. I asked you if it was. 

[Leo Gura]

Enough petty nonsense.

[mandyjw]

18 hours ago, Forestluv said:

We can empower and condition ourselves to feel good. Yet with that comes responsibility (assuming the existence of a person that can take responsibility) . For example, one of my students come to class in person yet. She has been viewing online since the first day of class. She recently emailed me that she has PTSD of male authority figures and she is terrified of coming to class because she might spiral into a panic attack. There are many different ways I can relate to this situation. Some ways would yield bad feelings, some ways would yield good feelings and some ways yield a mixture of feelings. Assuming that I have "choice", I won't choose a relationship that would yield me good feelings at her expense. I'm not going to choose a path that I feel good exerting my authority over her. I'm not going to choose a path where I feel good by ignoring her situation and pretending she is happy. The highest (relative) path for me is to have empathy and love for her. I know what it's like to spiral into uncontrollable panic attacks. To feel good that she was able to be vulnerable with me and tell me that. To love her as she is right now, even if she is terrified of me and never comes to class or has a breakthrough. To be supportive of her however I can. Yet I also acknowledge that a man in authority did horrific things to her that caused damage and suffering. I don't feel so good about that, yet I won't dwell on it. I will focus on being loving and supportive. Yet my love and support for her will not address the man who abused her, a society that allows men in authority to abuse and a society that lacks resources to help men that abuse. There is a very high likelihood that the man (or men) that abuse her were themselves abused. 

Before I somewhat ruthlessly flip the perspective of this, please know that I really like and appreciate you and your posts. I also really appreciate this conversation. 

If I decide that I have PTSD of male authority figures, I am taking a memory (albeit, perhaps VERY true, legitimate and very traumatic) and projecting it into the future as fear and expectation. Now I am fearful and suspicious of all male authority figures, so much so I can't even attend class in person. How is this, (except for the fact that women are seen as weak and vulnerable, and therefore garner your sympathy and trigger your hero response more readily) different from a police officer who had an incredibly close call with a past incident early on in his career with a black man, becoming very suspicious and fearful of black men in the future? 

The real difference is that instead of putting others in society at harm and perpetuating racism because of the newly formed bias and fear, she is the only one suffering. The suffering is internalized for the most part because of her situation. 

As a society, we are fine with letting people suffer with their own traumas and fears and prejudice and projections as long as they don't endanger or offend anyone else. The sad thing is, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The real cause is the suffering and false identification with the mind creating the notion of itself as the common link between past events and future events. "I" creates time, creates past and future, creates desire and fear, creates good and bad, creates biases and prejudices.

All this victim/ offender stuff completely covers over the real cause, and THEREFORE the real potential for healing. I.   

 

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by mandyjw

[Nahm]

@Vrubel

I hear ya. 

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, mandyjw said:

Before I somewhat ruthlessly flip the perspective of this, please know that I really like and appreciate you and your posts. I also really appreciate this conversation. 

As do I. You are welcomed to press me. I like seeing things from different perspectives.

6 hours ago, mandyjw said:

If I decide that I have PTSD of male authority figures,

Whoa. . . right out of the gate, you are giving A LOT of decisive power to an "I". Could this "I" also decide to decrease production of insulin in it's pancreas?

6 hours ago, mandyjw said:

If I decide that I have PTSD of male authority figures, I am taking a memory (albeit, perhaps VERY true, legitimate and very traumatic) and projecting it into the future as fear and expectation. Now I am fearful and suspicious of all male authority figures, so much so I can't even attend class in person.

I see thought stories as being on piece of the puzzle. Within this piece, I would agree that there is a story of trauma, which can intensify and perpetuate PTSD. Yet this is just one piece. The brain of those traumatized has undergone changes. In particular, gene expression patterns. These changes can help prepare the body to survive immediate threats, yet they can persist for years after an incident - even when the proximal cause has been removed. For example, trauma alters gene expression patterns of the stress hormone cortisol. At an epigenetic level, DNA is improperly methylated leading to chronically higher expression, even for years. This contributes to higher chronic anxiety and sensitivity in the neurological and endocrine systems. And it's not just a few genes - it's hundreds of genes that alter brain chemistry. It's extremely difficult to re-methylate and re-wire properly. The only research I'm aware of that has shown success epigenetically re-patterning is EMDR therapy. My suspicion is the psychedelics and breathwork may as well, yet there has been any research showing it yet.  

If we allow the neuroscience piece of the puzzle, it's not as simple as "just decide not to have PTSD". That would be like telling someone with schizophrenia "just decide not to hallucinate". Or me telling you to "Just decide not to see colors".  It's not that simple. This is one of the most challenging aspects of PTSD, to treat and to live with. Not just internally, yet externally. Part of neurological disorders of external influences. For example, social systems that think people with PTSD "deciding" to have PTSD. That puts an enormous pressure on the person and it intensifies the PTSD. It is why people with PTSD are often isolated in their own hell, afraid that people will think them crazy or that they are "deciding" to have PTSD.

6 hours ago, mandyjw said:

How is this, (except for the fact that women are seen as weak and vulnerable, and therefore garner your sympathy and trigger your hero response more readily) different from a police officer who had an incredibly close call with a past incident early on in his career with a black man, becoming very suspicious and fearful of black men in the future? 

I'm fine calling them both equivalent at the individual level. We can say that the woman and the police officer were exposed to an equivalent amount of trauma and have an equivalent amount of PTSD. This is a true equivalency at the individual level yet, a false equivalency at the population level. Individual equivalencies cannot always be extrapolated to the population level. There are distinctions between the two. In the context of racism, racism is asymmetric at the population level. At an individual level, a white person or black person being a target of racism is equivalent - yet not at the population level. Racism is asymmetric at the population level - black people are disproportionally affected. There are mountains of evidence that indicates racism is asymmetric. It is as clear as gravity. 

For example, black people are disproportionately targeted by police and the justice system. Of course, there are scattered instances of white people being targeted because they are white. For the relatively rare white individual that undergoes repeated targeting because he is white, yes it is fair to say that individual has a legitimate claim of racism, injustice and distress. Yet this cannot be extrapolated to the population level. At the population level, black people are disproportionately impacted by racism. It would be inaccurate and unfair to say "that white individual was exposed to egregious racism, therefore white people are exposed to egregious racism, just like black people. 

In my own direct experience, when I traveled through central and south America, there were parts in which the police were corrupt and targeted white tourists. Even if I didn't do anything wrong, the police could target me, abuse me, bring me into the police station, plant drugs on me, charge me fines etc. It was the first time in my life I didn't trust police and it was a very distressing experience. I had never experienced anything like it. There were times in which evading a police officer or resisting was on the table. It was part of the calculus. I had to be very strategic. . . In the U.S., I've never met a white person that *gets it*. They've never lived like that and don't have the experience. Yet when I speak with an inner-city black person, they immediately *get it*, because it is their lived experience. I told one black person my strategy for navigating around police officers to minimize the chance of getting targeted and the person responded "Yes!!! That's how you do it!! How did you know that?". I was the first white person they met that had lived this and got a taste of it. . . It would be absurd for me to say that since I got a taste of it that white people in general have to live it like black people. 

6 hours ago, mandyjw said:

The real difference is that instead of putting others in society at harm and perpetuating racism because of the newly formed bias and fear, she is the only one suffering. The suffering is internalized for the most part because of her situation. 

And part of the reason she is the only one suffering, internalizing it and isolating it because much of society tells her "you are deciding to have PTSD". . . 

6 hours ago, mandyjw said:

As a society, we are fine with letting people suffer with their own traumas and fears and prejudice and projections as long as they don't endanger or offend anyone else.

I would agree with this. For example, most people are fine with prisoners that suffer under abusive conditions because they don't endanger anyone outside the prison. Yet many of these prisons have dubious "criminal offenses", such as drug possession or addiction. 

6 hours ago, mandyjw said:

The real cause is the suffering and false identification with the mind creating the notion of itself as the common link between past events and future events. "I" creates time, creates past and future, creates desire and fear, creates good and bad, creates biases and prejudices.

I would agree that this is one variable of "cause", yet to me it is too contracted and dismisses other variables. I see it as much more holistic. 

As I mentioned above, there are physical aspects in the neuro, endocrine systems. Imagine telling someone that was severely injured in a car accident to simply stop the identification of being a "car accident victim" and heal herself. This has value in certain contexts, yet in other contexts it's absurd. You are not going to completely repair physical damage by dropping identification. That will alleviate certainly help, yet it's not going to heal a paralyzed person. One must undergo various therapies needed for that. De-identification is necessary, yet insufficient for healing from certain injuries. 

6 hours ago, mandyjw said:

All this victim/ offender stuff completely covers over the real cause, and THEREFORE the real potential for healing. 

 I think there is value in this and it is a very important piece of the puzzle. Yet if one limits themself to this, it can be harmful in some situations. To me, there are multiple angles you are not including. Your ideas seem limited to mental, energetic dynamics - which are important. Yet dismiss other aspects such as physical, empathic and direct experience. 

Edit: I would also like to mention that in the context of brain function, traumatic experiencing are seared into the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. These are not like normal memories. Traumatic memories can go deep into hippocampus and re-activation can cause a neuro-endocrine response that is as intense as the initial trauma. Part of the difficulty of PTSD is not knowing if that will get suddenly re-activated and reliving the trauma again. That can be terrifying. And part of these experiences is the powerlessness of it. It's a hell one cannot stop and it will never end. It's not something one can decide "I'm just not going to identify as a victim". It goes much deeper and broader than that. Now that I think about it, I don't think someone can have a deep understanding - that includes conceptual, energetic, intuitive and empathic - without the direct experience.