Anonymous attacker hit me hard, but I can’t let coward change me

By David McElroy · December 20, 2018

I didn’t think anybody could possibly be more critical of me than I am of myself, but I discovered tonight that I was mistaken.

I learned as a child to be harshly critical of myself and to blame myself for everything, whether I was responsible for it or not. These days, I’m still strongly inclined to concentrate on my faults and weaknesses. If you’ve paid attention to what I’ve written here, you already know this, though.

I received a nasty anonymous email tonight. No matter how much my own internal dialogue attacks me, I now know that someone out there has a much deeper and more vicious dislike for me than my childhood programming implanted.

It hurts to be attacked on such a personal level. Seriously. On that score, this cowardly attacker scored a bullseye. For a few minutes, I was really, really hurt. Maybe that will make someone happy.

But such an attack ultimately reveals more about this cowardly anonymous attacker, so that takes some of the sting out of it.

The thing that made this attack noteworthy is that it felt so personal to the attacker. It wasn’t about ideas. It wasn’t about business. It wasn’t about some real-world dispute. It was about this person’s vicious judgment that I “have nothing to offer…” This person was judging me — was prosecutor, judge and jury. And people rarely do that unless it’s personal.

The very personal nature of it made it sting at first and then made me wonder why any sane person would have developed this need to tell me what a lousy person I am. If this attacker thinks so little of me, why does he or she pay such close attention to me? Why would this person care enough to set up a fake email account just to attack me in this way?

I have always been my own worst critic. I know myself better than you do and I worry about a lot more things than any outsider could possibly imagine. If someone wanted to get to know me in a genuine way — instead of as an attacker trying to hurt me — I would gladly reveal far more insecurities and flaws than you knew to hit on in your little attack. Honest.

But here’s the thing. I know which way I’m going right now. You don’t. I know what I want to be and which things about myself that I still want to change. You don’t have a clue. You’re just a cowardly loser sitting on the sideline taking potshots at someone you don’t really understand as much as you think you do.

If I were to listen to your sort of attack, I would pull back into a shell and not attempt to do the things I’m working on right now, but you won’t get that satisfaction. I’m not going to let your lack of understanding of me — and the cowardly way you expressed it — stop me from working on the things I’m trying to change.

It’s strange how little we really understand other people — and how little they understand us — but how easy it is to assume we understand others, as we apply our own standards and assumptions to them.

(One thing about this which is humorous is that this person isn’t aware that it’s possible to trace the geolocation of IP addresses from which anonymous emails come. Your location revealed far more about yourself than you realize.)

People are strange, especially when they think they understand more about you than they do. An anonymous attack says far more about the attacker than it does the person being attacked. It’s still painful to be attacked, even if you know far more about your own faults than the attacker who’s trying to hurt you.

It just makes you wonder why a person invests so much emotional energy in following someone who they can’t stand — someone who they are so certain has no value.

As long as I choose to write for the public, I can’t change what anonymous followers think. Being misunderstood just comes with the territory. But if I’m lucky, the coward behind tonight’s attack will quit following me and go find someone else to hate instead.

I have enough self-criticism that lives inside my own head. I really don’t need your help with that.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts