It’s more healthy to gain yardage than to lose it
Running the football forward and passing it forward gains you yards. You want to do this. When the quarterback or running back gets sacked that is bad because you lose yardage. Sometimes players run in the opposite direction by mistake into their own end zone. That will cost you two points and the ball. Don’t do that.
You’ll want to score more points than the other team
You should try to get touch downs and field goals. When you get more points than the other team and the game time clock runs out, you win the game. The more games you win the better because then you can get in the playoffs and if you keep winning you could get in the Superbowl.
Being good at catching a football is important
When a quarterback throws a ball to his receivers, it’s important that they catch it. Being good at catching takes a lot of practice and you should really learn to do it well. If you are on the opposing team but not a receiver it’s nice to be good at catching as well as you can intercept the ball so your team gets to have it. Dropping the football is really bad, you shouldn’t do that. The other team could recover it.
A football is different
A football is not a basketball, it is oblong and has pointy ends. Throwing, catching, and running with it is different than other sports. Footballs have been inflated to their optimal level. It would be wise not to walk in on them being inflated or tamper with them yourself. You could even lose playing time for doing so.
I had an appointment down at the indigent clinic and one of the things on the TV is most stress is caused by our reaction to stressors, not the stressors themselves. While this is true some of the times (like taking things out of proportion in relationships) I wouldn’t say it is the majority. All this tells me is I’m culpable for my stress if I am unable to play cognitive tricks and take pills that make handling all the shit thrown my way survivable.
A lot of critiques one levies against Christianity can be levied just as strongly against the therapeutic industrial complex (TIC).
Both are disingenuous about authority. In Christianity this takes the form of denying the faith is in fact a religion and making people think their opinions actually come from God and not religious authorities (that’s why they’re fine with people being attuned to the voice of God so long as it doesn’t go against their teachings). With the TIC therapists claim to be facilitating one’s own decision making process when they suggest things (the therapist I have to see told me to quit my job, which would have been bad had I done it). The problem is in order for therapy to work one must trust in the authority of the therapist (for example sleep therapy where the therapists told the patients not to have such anxious thoughts about going to sleep). One of the austerity measures in Britain was to force people on the disability roles to see therapists that would presumably tell them to get a job. This brings up another thread where the dynamic of the doctor patient relationship changes depending on who is footing the bill (so an upper middle class professional seeing a therapist on private insurance might use a therapist as a sounding board only where someone lower down will be more controlled by them).
Both include thought crimes. In Christianity this is obvious borne from Jesus’s teachings on lust and anger. The negativity bitterness is met with also seems to indicate Christians are culpable for their emotions as well. Things aren’t any better in the TIC. Sexuality is left alone much more in the TIC but other thoughts get banned. You enter the tyranny of self-esteem. Feeling bad about yourself (even if it’s warranted though reasons grounded in anthropology and common sense) is off limits. And to continue to do so just brings more guilt. Negative thoughts are almost always seen as bad even though they are often accurate and ground a person in reality. Treatments try to get deep inside your head and are really invasive with your thought processes with the promise of making you “healthy”. But often, like a half done house, these mechanics applied poorly are worse than them not being applied at all. People who can’t play the cognitive tricks needed to succeed in therapy are guilted the same way Christians who don’t experience God are (both require a brain way beyond mine).
Both have an unrealistic expectation for purity. In Christianity this is obvious, there is an emphasis on sinful things and not being good enough. In the TIC “unhealthy” replaces sinful as the term to stay away from though they are much less direct about this. The TIC tends to assume one has the material, social, and emotional resources to live a successful hyper individualistic life and if one happens to fall short of this they aren’t healthy. They demonize neediness because that implies dependence which is something to stay away from (plus a lot of people would see therapists less if they had good friends). People of lower means often don’t have access to “healthy relationships”, simply because people who the TIC deems healthy generally don’t associate with people the TIC does not. Like God’s perfection, being what the TIC calls healthy is an impossible goal only available to a small portion of the population.
Both pretend to care about you when all they want to do is control you. I understand there are caring therapists and caring people in the faith but these are a small minority. Most people want to exploit and control you, it’s just that in some professions they have to do so while playing lip service to having concern for you. Remember that the religious people who tell you to take your experience of God seriously won’t be there to pay the mental hospital bills when you do. And therapists are not bound to what their work produces the way engineers are. If a bridge fails an engineer will often suffer the consequences. If a therapist ruins a life no one bats an eye. In fact because patient confidentiality and the itinerant nature of that kind of care they more often than not will never know.
A pretty profound question is, “who or what would you kick an addiction for”. Now people religious enough will give Sunday School answers like God or Jesus. But for the rest of us this is a good question because the way our culture is addictions are so easy to fall into (alcohol, drugs, porn, internet, video games, food, etc..). And because of social breakdown we have less or no people we are intimate with. Some of us (like me) have nothing or no one we’d give up an addiction for. This idea is the backbone of the twelve step program. No matter what your feelings about the 12 step program who or what you’d kick an addiction for is an important question to ask—often without an answer.
Every therapist should listen to this podcast. All disallowing negativity does is silence those who speak truth to power. In fact if you take the idea there is truth away entirely than in the vacuum all that exists is what those in power command, in this case circuitously by banning negativity.
Every person begins in a state of total dependence and most end life in some level of the same. one day I will be disabled.
I think the real problem is the wretched idea that the most human among us should be independent. I refuse to dehumanize another because their level of dependence on others is greater than mine. There would be no need for a pride movement among the more dependent if we started accepting our interdependence and if we humanized people, not based on their abilities, but based on their innate humanity.
Therapists demonize neediness and dependence. Somehow we are all supposed to live in a world where we can live a self contained hyperindividualistic existence. Unfortunately economic reality dictates that many of us can’t and certainly most of us with disabilities can’t. What we can’t help being is what we’re not supposed to be. If that isn’t ableism I don’t know what is. It’s even worse than religion. At least with religion if you submit to their tenants and perform their rituals they usually treat you as someone you’re supposed to be.
And why is dependence a bad thing? Calling someone dependent on others is almost a slur. If the capability to be autonomous wasn’t out of reach for a large portion of our generation then maybe you could make the case for it. But it’s not. It’s just another way to kick us while we’re already down. That’s what our culture is good at, kicking us when we’re down. Those on top are loved and lifted up. Everyone else can go die in a fire.
When I say that I am against forgiveness, I am not judging individuals who choose to forgive. If doing so helps you, then by all means, forgive. What I abhor is a culture that places demands on victims and survivors, insisting that we are not whole until we forgive. Forgiveness culture implies that betrayers and abusers can expect to be forgiven — they can hurt and harm and rage — and should their targets decline to forgive, they can rest smug in the assurance that the refusal reflects a flaw in their victims, not in themselves.
Believing that I don’t have the right to exist exactly as I am is hatred. Fighting against my civil rights is hatred. Believing that Romans 1 applies to me and that I’m therefore “worthy of death” is hatred. Referring to my existence as an abomination— which has happened to me multiple times over the last few days– is hatred. One man on my public facebook page told me I was abomination, that my existence was just as evil the eyes of God as mass murder, but then two comments later said that he “loved” me and “mourned the deaths in Orlando”!
Here are three poisonous vestiges of Christian implementation* that people who are no longer in the faith still often exhibit:
The protestant reward ethic. There was nothing wrong with the protestant work ethic initially, especially when one had a guaranteed way to be a gainful member of society. When there was a farm there were avenues to be productive by default. In industrialization where there were jobs as well. But as time went on implied reward for hard work became part of this ethic. Eventually the rewards were seen as more important than the work. A person who is working a tough retail job will be looked down upon in church while a person who got an easy better paying job through connections won’t be (little wonder working class people have been leaving the church). If you can’t find a job you’ll be treated very bad in the church, particularly if you’re male.
Intolerance. The intolerance and pettiness of Christian implementation is alive and well in those that have left the faith. Now these people are just directing their intolerance different places. Take the flak the moderators of the anti porn subreddit are getting. Or how shallow and vapid our celebrity culture is and how gleeful we all are to pounce on anyone who offers an opinion that differs from our subculture’s dominant narrative. The punk live-and-let-live ethos was never a part of Christian implementation (at least in America where people were Christian by default) and unsurprisingly is not part of post-Christian culture either.
Loaded metanarratives. Most stories are not neutral spaces, particularly the important stories in our lives. They are are loaded. There is a right side and a wrong side to them and you’d better expend all your effort making sure you get and stay on the right side of them. The most obvious of these is the Christian story which presents you with the right side (heaven) and the wrong side (hell), and a choice. What happened in the late 1800’s is evangelists had sons who went into advertising. Now the stories involved always being the bridesmaid and never the bride, just for not using the advertised mouthwash. Because of the massive amount of money to be made, the best of art and science got poured into advertising and it became so good that rebellion became commodified. Consumer culture may be even more pernicious than religion because by design it doesn’t allow doubt, but does so by making you think you’re thinking for yourself. The shame and rejection once characterized by hell is mediated through peers channeled from the mass media.
* I say Christian implementation because people defending the faith seem to think that Christianity was pure and got corrupted and thus the corrupted element (including Christians’ behavior) doesn’t count for anything when ascertaining the value of the faith