Angry behavior on social media is killing you and hurting your cause

By David McElroy · January 18, 2022

I’ve been away from Facebook for more than a year, but I recently waded into the waters of insanity there briefly. It was an eye-opening experience.

Facebook owns Instagram and is pushing users to integrate their accounts on the two services. Somehow, my Instagram settings were changed — without my knowledge — in a way that published all of my Instagram posts to Facebook. This meant I had to spend some time figuring out how to untangle the two accounts again. Out of curiosity, I browsed my old Facebook news feed while I was there.

The experience reminded me why I left. More than anything, though, it left me questioning the mental stability and judgment of some friends who I’ve always believed are good people. The raging political hatred they were expressing left me alarmed.

It wasn’t that I disagreed with the specifics of their political or social positions, in many cases. But the rage and hatred they were spewing made it seem that they had lost all perspective about life. It seemed as though the medium of social media had turned them into raging monsters.

They were angry about things they couldn’t control in the real world, so their rage drove them to scream with hatred of their enemies on Facebook. This does absolutely nothing to change the world around them in the ways they want — and that internal rage appears to be destroying them.

When people who had been intelligent and thoughtful in their posts for years gradually shift to obsessively posting angry diatribes about their hated political enemies, it tells me how toxic and corrosive their thinking has become.

When you act in this way, you’re not doing anything to change the policies you hate. In fact, the truth is that it is almost impossible to change the things you hate about politics. I know you’ve been brainwashed to believe that you can change the world through political action — even with minor involvement — but this is a lie.

The people who have a vested interest in your obedience need you to believe you have a say in how things are run, but you don’t. Not really. Powerful elites in societies take varying degrees of control over periods of decades or centuries — and they don’t give up their powers easily. It’s easy to just broadly think that “the rich” are the elites, but this isn’t true.

The elites are big business groups and labor unions and the state school establishment, among many others. In many cases, groups which are deeply entrenched in the powerful elite — school teacher unions, for instance — revel in their ability to make you believe that they are oppressed outsiders. But these sorts of groups have huge influence over what policies are adopted by politicians.

You as an individual have almost zero influence. That isn’t going to change.

The notion that you can become a powerful voice for your views on social media and convince other people to support you position is simply a fantasy. If it helps you sleep at night, I guess you can do what you want, but it’s simply disconnected from reality.

For every one person who happens to become a legitimate influencer — for about 15 minutes, most of the time — there are 10 million or so who are completely powerless. The sane and reasonable assumption is that you are one of those powerless people.

If you are powerless to change what’s going on in the immediate world around you — what politicians do to you or allow done to you — your only rational and reasonable response is to figure out how you can react that will best accomplish your desires and meet your needs.

You can’t fight a reality which you didn’t create. You will destroy yourself trying. But you can move somewhere that’s more friendly to your point of view. You can physically move to a place that might be safer. You can look at where money and investments are going and make rational decisions about how to avoid being hurt by the actions of those politicians who you can’t control.

If you have the proactive willingness to deal with reality and react in the way that is most likely to achieve what you want, you are the one in control of your life.

If you allow the actions of politicians to turn you into a hateful and raging monster, you will have allowed them to have ultimate control. You will have given up control over the one part of this world which is truly yours.

If you want to let them control you, keep obsessing about things you can’t control. Keep screaming and making yourself look like a fool to other people. And keep letting the toxic anger corrode you on the inside.

If you don’t want them to control you, accept reality, whether you like it or not. Understand which things you can control and which things you can’t. Start making decisions about the things over which you do have control.

The world is never going to be what I want it to be. Or what you want it to be. But that doesn’t mean we have to let the toxicity of the world destroy us. How we react — especially inside — is completely up to us.

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