I am no psychiatrist or therapist, but I have been on the receiving end of verbal abuse, multiple times over decades, and managed to escape and recover from (most of) the trauma. I'm not sure that really "qualifies" me to say the following, in the academic sense, but...1/

I am seeing the press engaging in what I would call verbal abuse. When you invite a "guest" onto a program to present his or her POV, or to discuss their "expert" opinion on a subject, and then laugh at them, roll your eyes and talk over them, ask only rhetorical questions 2/
...and then accuse the guest of harming/doing disservice to the audience, you are behaving like an abuser. You are "informing" no one of anything other than your willingness to bully and abuse other human beings. Hosts with honest disagreements can and should ASK questions 3/
The hallmark of sincere disagreement is the listener who first checks for understanding of the speaker's POV, then asks why they say that. The host could challenge their arguments on the merits, with their evidence, then allow the guest to respond. This is how adults act. 4/
Immature, irrational, indoctrinated, and/or abusive, people talk OVER, mock, belittle, and accuse guests with different points of view of being "dangerous" or "harming" viewers/listeners. This is the behavior of deeply insecure people who know their ideas lack merit. 5/
Like other abusers, those who willingly gaslight and verbally abuse others seem to feel powerless, and derive power from putting others down. If you want to talk about seeking "social justice," you should talk about denying such people your eyes, ears and attention. 6/
There is nothing to be gained from interactions with verbal abusers, even when you agree with the ideas they seem to support. They are less interested in the value of those ideas than in the power they can derive from holding them, and that power comes at others' expense 7/
When I was leading a support group for survivors of narcissistic abuse some years ago, I tried to help people find ways to go "no-contact" with their abuser. It was the only way for them to rebuild their sense of self, and resist being sucked back into the neg feedback loop 8/
I see the same need now. It's not being "closed-minded" to shut off or shut out verbal abusers. There are rational, calm people presenting points of view that challenge your own, if that's what you want to find. Avoiding abuse doesn't mean finding an echo-chamber. 9/
In fact, too much validation puts you at risk of becoming the monster you're trying to escape. No, just look for sources of information and discussion partners (as well as friends and romantic partners) who understand the rules of adult verbal interaction 10/
Confident, self-assured, NON-abusive people don't resort to ad hominem, gaslighting, or other logical fallacies to support their claims. They aren't trying to "win," they're trying to understand. They may still disagree with your ideas, but know they have to PERSUADE 11/
These media abusers are bad faith actors b/c they knew their guests' views before they invited them to speak. The whole thing was an ambush, done for their, and your amusement. To me this is evidence of an emotionally UNWELL society. 12/
How do we fight it? Turn it off. Do not engage. Go no-contact from this sort of thing. Deny them their audience, your time, their "supply," and you deny them power. It really is that simple. Once they lose it, politicians whose policies they prop up lose it too. 13/
We have the power, "Dorothy," we've had it all along. Call it what it is: ABUSE, turn if off, ignore it, see them for the sad, insecure, immature, terrified children they are. "There's no place like the home of the free, land of the brave." BE BRAVE. /end
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Health

No-regret #hydrogen:
Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe.

👉Summary of conclusions of a new study by @AgoraEW @AFRY_global @Ma_Deutsch @gnievchenko (1/17)
https://t.co/YA50FA57Em


The idea behind this study is that future hydrogen demand is highly uncertain and we don’t want to spend tens of billions of euros to repurpose a network which won’t be needed. For instance, hydrogen in ground transport is a hotly debated topic
https://t.co/RlnqDYVzpr (2/17)

Similar things can be said about heat. 40% of today’s industrial natural gas use in the EU goes to heat below 100°C and therefore is within range of electric heat pumps – whose performance factors far exceed 100%. (3/17)


Even for higher temperatures, a range of power-to-heat (PtH) options can be more energy-efficient than hydrogen and should be considered first. Available PtH technologies can cover all temperature levels needed in industrial production (e.g. electric arc furnace: 3500°C). (4/17)


In our view, hydrogen use for feedstock and chemical reactions is the only inescapable source of industrial hydrogen demand in Europe that does not lend itself to electrification. Examples include ammonia, steel, and petrochemical industries. (5/17)
I think @SamAdlerBell in his quest to be the contrarian on Fauci gets several things wrong here. 1/


First, the failure last year actually was driven by the White House, the #Trump inner circle. Watch what's happening now, the US' scientific and public health infrastructure is creaking back to life. 2/

I think Sam underestimates the decimation of many of our health agencies over the past four years and the establishment of ideological control over them during the pandemic. 3/

I also am puzzled why Tony gets the blame for not speaking up, etc. Robert Redfield, Brett Giroir, Deb Birx, Jerome Adams, Alex Azar all could have done the same. 4/

Several of these people Bob Redfield, Brett Giroir, Alex Azar were led by craven ambition, Jerome Adams by cowardice, but I do think Deb Birx and Tony tried as institutionalists, insiders to make a difference. 5/

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.