There are some very high quality people at DU, so I figured you deserved a better explanation than the one I gave you a few days ago. I've made some good friends here. Many of you defy the nature of the beast (Internet forum) and retain a high moral standard no matter what. I truly admire you. I especially admire your ability to persevere despite stresses and setbacks. I'm sorry if the abruptness of my post hurt any feelings.
I'm going to have to take a break from DU and politics, perhaps a permanent one. My basic sensitivity, my chronic illnesses and other stresses are making it difficult for me to function in day-to-day life. They are making it hard for me to maintain civility in personal relationships and especially on Internet forums. I don't like who I am when I become an ass on an Internet forum. If I do return, it will be in a limited manner. No more GD.
I thought it might help to educate you a bit about the basic nature of the 15 to 20% of human beings who are highly sensitive by nature. I've always detected a difference between my basic nature and that of most others. I was born that way and I've been that way my whole life.
http://tinyurl.com/eqs3aHypersensitivity...you say that like it's a bad thing...:shrug:
On her
website and in her book,
The Highly Sensitive Person, Dr. Elaine Aron notes:
If you find you are a highly sensitive person, or your child is, then you need to be aware of the following points:
* This trait is normal--it is inherited by 15 to 20% of the population, and indeed the same percentage seems to be present in all higher animals.
* Being an HSP means your nervous system is more sensitive to subtleties. Your sight, hearing, and sense of smell are not necessarily keener (although they may be). But your brain processes information and reflects on it more deeply.
* Being an HSP also means, necessarily, that you are more easily overstimulated, stressed out, overwhelmed.
* This trait is not something new I discovered--it has been mislabeled as shyness (not an inherited trait), introversion (30% of HSPs are actually extraverts), inhibitedness, fearfulness, and the like. HSPs can be these, but none of these are the fundamental trait they have inherited.
* The reason for these negative misnomers and general lack of research on the subject is that in this culture being tough and outgoing is the preferred or ideal personality--not high sensitivity. (Therefore in the past the research focus has been on sensitivity's potential negative impact on sociability and boldness, not the phenomenon itself or its purpose.) This cultural bias affects HSPs as much as their trait affects them, as I am sure you realize. Even those who loved you probably told you, "don't be so sensitive," making you feel abnormal when in fact you could do nothing about it and it is not abnormal at all.
http://www.hsperson.com/The DU Rules:
3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.
4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.
Folks break the civility and "no personal attacks" rules all the time on DU. It's expected. The rules are practically ignored with the expectation that some of one's posts will be deleted. Hell, I've broken the rules numerous times myself. Breaking the rules of civility is
necessary in order to defend oneself. Flamewars have become--or perhaps have always been--
normal on Internet forums, and especially in DU's General Discussion forums. I've often wondered what it is about the anonymity of the Internet that leads us to behave in this manner.
One of the reasons I participated here for so long was I hoped the lack of civil discourse in GD would "toughen me up." Maybe it helped some, but I can't change my inherited nature, which is that of a highly sensitive person. So, according to the rules, I really
don't belong on DU because I
am hypersensitive. I freely admit it. It makes things difficult in some ways, but in some ways it's a gift. It tends to go along with an artistic and thoughtful nature, both of which I possess. Unfortunately, the stress of being a highly sensitive person in this society tends to impinge upon the positive aspects of the trait, curbing creativity and creating defensiveness. That part of being highly sensitive totally sucks. :(
After I left in a huff, I realized I had, for the most part, stopped posting original threads in GD for fear of being flamed. I also realized I had stopped posting
anything that might get me flamed. I went against the grain once again and shouldn't have been surprised at the result. Sensitive folks probably aren't too keen on sharing any observations that run counter to GD "norms."
In effect, the DU rules disallow highly sensitive people--perhaps 15 to 20% of the population--but hell, they also disallow flamewars and GD is perpetually combusting. I ran across this as I was posting:
When I'm bored, I go to DU just to post flamebaitI think GD would benefit by the participation of more sensitive people, but I don't think that is very likely to happen.
Hell...maybe no one
belongs on Internet forums. Why do we behave the way we do? It's just sad. All Skinner et al. can do is delete posts as they are alerted and occasionally tombstone someone who flagrantly breaks the rules repeatedly without saying "I'm sorry" in just the right way. This isn't an indictment of the admins. I think they do a hell of a job considering the number and types of people who post here. What I have trouble with is the environment created by anonymous Internet forums in general. There's something about them that makes us behave differently than we would in real life.
I don't like who I am when I fight back on Internet forums. Maybe it's my basic sensitivity. Maybe it's shame left over from my fundy upbringing. In the end, it doesn't matter. I don't enjoy fighting. Others openly claim they enjoy flamebaiting and arguing. I don't understand that. They probably don't understand me, either.
When I posted that I was leaving, I'm sure there were a lot of "don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya" type of posts. There were probably copycat posts mocking my decision, posts saying, "Don't you hate when someone has to be a drama queen and
announce they are leaving? Fuck, just do it!" So, hey, I didn't read the thread. Can you blame me? I don't plan to read this one, either, so feel free to express yourself however you like...not that anything I say would stop you.
I imagine the majority of you behaved in a more civilized manner. To you, I bid you a fond adieu. I may return if I can find my footing again, but I won't try "toughening up the GD way" anymore. It doesn't seem to work.
As for my stupid decision to vote for Mr. Bush in the 2000 election, yes, it was a mistake. I have felt a lot of guilt over it. Luckily, my vote didn't change anything because I live in California, which voted for President Gore. Had my state swung red, I would feel even more guilt than I do now.
However, I cannot in good conscience accept too much guilt, for there were mitigating circumstances, which I spoke of in several posts.
In the thread of which I speak, most posters issued a blanket condemnation of anyone who voted Republican. Some gave us "year-2000 losers" a break; some condemned anyone who had ever voted Republican for any reason. The general consensus was, however, that anyone who voted Republican shared a huge amount of blame...some even said 100% of the blame. For awhile after the 2004 election, I felt that angry with anyone who voted for Bush, but finally decided it was pretty hypocritical of me to point a finger at them when I had my own share of life mistakes (hello...year 2000?). I might even say the same of some of you who are still blaming voters. Yes, some of them really fucked up, but if they wake up and decide to help, are you just going to throw their vote back in their face and say, "Screw you!"...or are you going to accept their help which is so desperately needed?
There are stages of grief and one of them is anger. Maybe some of you need to feel the anger for awhile longer before you can let go of the grief, but in the end, we are all human. We all fuck up. No one can stand entirely blameless. Hey, maybe you could have made just ONE MORE call on behalf of Kerry, eh? No one can entirely shoulder the blame, either. Maybe in 2004, "Mary Sue" voted for Bush in Ohio...but what if she sees her error and decides to make up for it as best she can? Will you go on blaming her? Or will you accept her much-needed help? This entire planet is in
so much trouble. How much self-righteousness can we afford?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I still feel a lot of anger as I go through my own grieving process. My entire family is wrapped up in the process. Also, I have a problem trusting people who have proven their untrustworthiness by past behavior. Finding the right balance is very difficult for me. Perhaps you find yourself in similar circumstances.
I just wanted to leave you with some things to think about...or not...as you see fit. Adieu, DU.