B-Side | 19-3-2026

Under Cooked, Over Flayed

    Whenever I see some clustered fuck of a situation unfolding in some corner of Online, I suppose the question(s) I keep coming back to is: What can I learn from this? What code of ethics am I supposed to apply here? Or is that merely a compulsion? Do I wish to articulate my own thoughts for the sake of my own clarity, or out of a desire to feel in control? And, thinking it about it now, however briefly, the answer to the last question is...probably both. That said, I might as well attempt to articulate myself, even if it's a shout into the void.

    In emotionally polarized situations, there is this tendency to commit to seeing someone as either "good" or "bad," in which those who are pulled into the discourse are either supposed to completely defend all of said person's words and actions, lest they be siding with monsters, or, when one agrees this person is "bad," then one is stuck circling the drain with anyone and everyone else who agrees this person is "bad," including people whose broader opinions and/or motives are also, shall we say...incorrect? 

    I've thought a lot about this recently. I don't think someone has to be a villainous heartless caricature to be doing harm; I think someone who is otherwise kind can be absolutely misled in their beliefs. I think when - to take an example - we think about abusers, we have this vague idea of a person who studiously performs charisma and charm in public, while in private, 'behind closed doors,' is absolutely dastardly, and that this is all part of their master plan. And, yes, it's true that some people are plotting manipulators. But for some people, donating to charity when they also emotionally abuse your kids isn't a matter of reputation upkeep. Maybe you could say it's a matter of subconscious guilt and shame manifesting as the need to do a "good" deed to balance the scales. But I think more of it is probably rooted in a deeply held belief system - the idea that charity is good, and also, that emotionally abusing one's kids is 'normal.' Or even the idea that both charity and emotional abuse are both ways to 'improve' others. Obviously, that's a deeply incorrect position to hold, but people are still capable of holding these beliefs; especially as per this example, we're talking about the emotional abuse of children, and the dehumanization of children is something that is baked several layers deep into the belief system of many societies. 

    I don't think someone who has promoted harmful beliefs is wholly and completely incapable of compassion or kindness in every other aspect of their life. In fact, there are people who find themselves stumbling into harmful beliefs with the idea that they are being compassionate and kind. For example: it is completely possible for someone to tumble headfirst into defending pedophiles, if they have been exposed to and convinced that those who they are defending are some unfairly marginalized group whose plight overlaps with that of, say, gay and trans people. This is a completely false and incorrect belief, and to promote "love and acceptance" of pedophiles on the basis of "shared marginalization" would be to immediately open the door to several bad faith actors, but this does not mean that a person cannot be convinced by "sympathetic" pedophiles that these pedophiles are just downtrodden human beings, rejected by a society who does not appreciate that they were merely born this way. 

    Because the way we construct the idea of a pedophile, or a rapist, or an abuser, is as someone who does not exist outside of those acts. We understand these people as entities, not as human beings. And sometimes, when people are forced to confront that this is a human being, who has thoughts and feelings and hobbies outside of the harm they commit/the harmful beliefs they hold, people fold. Go in the opposite direction completely. "Well, this individual was nice to me, so maybe they're not so bad? Maybe their beliefs are worth listening to? Maybe they're worth defending in totality?"

    And the answer to those questions is no.

    The fact of the matter is, is that human beings are capable of holding harmful beliefs, spreading those harmful beliefs, and committing harmful actions/behaviors. Humanity does not sanitize this fact. "But they were kind to me" is a common facet of denial of, for example, the actions of an abuser. Yes, the abuser's ability to manipulate others factors into this. Yes, marginalization factors into this -- at the very bare bones, you see women constantly thrown under the bus because "he was always a nice guy" and "maybe you were just a crazy bitch?" because women are not seen as people, the way children are seen as always at fault for "acting out," no matter what cruelty their parents have enacted that has provoked such resistance. But there is also this tendency towards all/nothing when thinking about what kind of people are "bad," and what kind of people are "good," and "good" people are, seemingly, not to be criticized, because the wholeness of their humanity is seemingly in of itself what ought to redeem them.

    All people deserve to be treated humanely. That does not include rote and unthinking defense of their beliefs and/or behaviors. 

    This is even further complicated when any authority is involved in the matter. Sometimes this is in the perpetrator's favor -- authorities being biased towards a "promising young man" and choosing to exonerate him of very serious crimes because they care more about his hypothetical future than a woman's - or multiple women's -- suffering.  Sometimes the authorities are not, which again provokes discourse -- usually, "the authority is acting without bias," or "the authority is fully acting with bias and thus any allegations are wrong." So another layer, a layer of additional and serious consequence, is added to the minefield of navigating these types of situations. Sometimes, someone with power may only listen to your plea for help if it serves some personal need of theirs. 

    What to do about all of this? I wish I had a more an answer, but we live in an extremely messy world. I suppose I would say: do not uncritically defend people of all their words and actions. Be aware of the broader circumstances a given situation is taking place in, but do not give into all/nothing thinking. Sometimes, Everybody Sucks Here, even if it's on different levels, for different reasons. People who commit even the most terrible atrocities are human beings. They listen to music. They have friends. They smile. They laugh. They pet dogs. They give money to the homeless. They comfort their mother. There is no "bad person" who isn't also a person. But this human aspect does not exonerate someone from harm - being human does not exonerate someone or prevent someone from doing or saying harmful things.

Also don't endorse pedophiles or rapists or abusers, what the hell.