"I personally enjoy novels where people pine after each other helplessly for thirty years while refusing to give any hint of their interest [. . .] Similarly, you should strive to avoid falling in love with your family’s ancient enemy, trying to redeem war criminals with the power of love, getting unexpectedly pregnant by strange billionaires, or pretending to date someone for contrived bet or inheritance reasons."
concept: a dating app where you can only do one of the above.
This is amazing. It distills and expands upon every single detail about the book that creeped me out back when I read it, and which I yelled to my friends constantly about as it grew in popularity. Thank you for putting into a coherent argument something that I'd only be able to articulate in outbursts of annoyance whenever the book comes up.
"This is a real problem, I’ve seen it a lot, and if Conflict Is Not Abuse were actually about this I would love it and recommend it to all my friends."
If you wrote this book, I would totally buy it and recommend it to all *my* friends. :)
Amazing review, and thank you for making it so that I never have to suffer through it myself!
Ok but you put a lot of words in her mouth here, which is while considering the oddessy long quotes you’ve included. The book has issues, I don’t like her either tbh (as a writer, since I don’t know her). You say some inconsistent things here. You stand up for people with certain mental health conditions and then imply that people who push small boundaries always push big boundaries. That is some black and white thinking that leads to mentally ill people like me and you who have borderline being ostracized. I have never pushed a big boundary, I have lost the line of small ones during a bpd fueled episode. I have also since learned from that, realized how bad it is, and have changed as a person. I sent emails I shouldn’t, and I have also been terribly abused and never laid a hand on another. It’s really offensive honestly to imply that symptoms of a mental illness like having porous boundaries means you are an abuser. How can you be pissed at Sarah for saying the same thing you implied in different words? Yeah she definitely has a victim mindset. Sounds like you might too. There is a happy medium between this weird post and her weird book.
Having the privilege of being able to learn healthy boundaries doesn’t mean those who are displaying symptoms of their abuse who haven’t learned yet are evil people who will rape and abuse you. That’s absolutely insane to say. You have to have a piss poor understanding of abuse and trauma cycles to think that “good” people don’t have this symptom after they’ve been abused. If you’re a “good” victim, you just lay down and show your belly? Just skip the stages of grief like anger and denial? You think that every person who’s been traumatized will someday have the chance to address it? If someone literally abuses you, that’s a line in the sand for all of us and it cannot be crossed. If someone has symptoms of PTSD, BPD, you certainly don’t need us in your life if you can’t handle a friendship with someone. And if someone you love needs healing and won’t get it and you can’t be around that anymore, that’s obviously normal and fine. But to say that people displaying symptoms like a lack of communication boundaries are always going to sexually assault you is so insulting to those of us who are fighting through the stages of grief after being sexually assaulted, and we don’t always act pretty. I’m not mad at anyone for being mad at me for not getting help soon enough. Good people aren’t perfect because perfect people don’t exist.
>I agree all those sentences are individually true but collectively they sure look like a justification for hitting on people who do not want you to hit on them.
Should I interpret this as Ozy thinking that you need prior permission before hitting on someone? Wouldn’t asking “can I hit on you?” itself be hitting on them?
Her book on Israel/Palestine and the Queer International (while much better than CINA in every respect) has all the same problems. Pretentious writing, long pontificating digressions, creepy and racist anecdotes, delusions of grandeur, blatantly untrue statements (sometimes all of these issues manifesting in a single passage, the crown jewel being when she gets pissed at Omar Barghouti for having the audacity to suggest that antizionist Jews are less likely to be labeled antisemitic than antizionist gentiles...)...she is an unbelievably cringey writer/thinker and there's many obvious reasons why CINA didn't come out on an academic press.
I think, broadly, because people need some way to articulate the steelmanned version and grab onto the book because it serves as a magic totem that expresses that version for them by its sheer existence. Regardless of what's actually written on the pages.
I confess that I read the book and even tried to internalize its messaging a few years ago. While I think there are some ways that her ideas — at least the steel-manned interpretations — speak to varieties of moral courage, I agree that her overall takeaway is unworkable as a way of living.
A duty to repair broken relations sounds tempting, but experience has shown me that the healthier option is to break things off; leaving things with frayed ends.
I agree with something like 90%-99% of what you say and at the same time it makes me think of the loneliness and unhappiness epidemic in modern America and the lamenting for a village and community that so many people do. There really is a mental health crisis that I don’t see how can be explained by objective negatives of the world - I suspect it has to do with fewer human connections and we’ve voluntarily eliminated them in favor of no one having a right to our time or emotions. Which resonates for me individually but… I don’t think it’s possible to have strong communities without those annoying demands on our time and emotions. Because people are complex and weird and suck in some ways and people have conflict with each other. The individualism that we seek might be bad for us. Maybe our lives should involve making more time for other people. I don’t know, you mention you have good friends you don’t have time to keep up with but lots of people don’t have friends at all or very few and it’s devastating on their health and happiness. We can’t and shouldn’t force anyone to be friends but… something about the current situation isn’t working well.
I used to kind of think like this. It was rooted in attachment trauma and I was unconscious of the entitlement involved in demanding people tend to my emotional needs. I would guess that's there's some attachment stuff going on in the author that she's not aware of.
This was a lot of fun to read, however Im surprised that you are surprised. Schulmans attitude is really not that far away from things you see with lots of radicals. For example, the idea that you must be able to explain yourself ("be accountable") is widespread in these circles. And it makes sense, too: These communities are really against discrimination, and how are you going to stop people from discriminating if they can just say "Oh I dont want to associate with this person" without any reason? And something like your worry about people making false accusations of abuse does in fact happen; but usually people dont make up physical events and claim they happened. Instead, the other persons known behaviour (or, the refusal to adujst it) is analysed as abusive, or his ideological opinions are argued to be wrong and "literally killing people".
This need to resolve all conflict drives two prominent stereotypes about radicals, because theres two ways such a resolution can happen: either one side admits fault and promises to change ("struggle session") or they consider each other evil/enemies (schism). Against this background, Schulman is unusual mainly in being less willing to identify people as abusive/incorrigable, which is in line with the claimed thesis.
Your implication that this is all a smokescreen for her being pushy doesnt seem supported to me. Even if someone follows this apporach to conflict honestly and without bias in their own favour, there still will be cases where you dont convince them and they dont convince you, and they will be insistent in those cases. The existence of cases like that doesnt mean they were never open to having their mind changed and is the sort of person to rape people. Doesnt make the insistence less annoying when it happens though.
I think you were confused by the books message because you couldnt tell what was intended to be message and whats Schulmans background reality, and just interpreted all differences to yourself as message. That said, I dont know anything about the book besides your quotes - just, it seems quite clear to me whats being said, even with your attempt to show the mess.
> Me: well, I guess that I found it annoying when you said that my favorite painting is a piece of shit because a child could paint it.
> Them: Let us debate whether abstract art is real art! Once you realize that I’m right, you won’t be annoyed by my trenchant art criticism.
You know you're dealing with a sea lion when ... they say /that/ instead of good ol' escalating their original demeaning behavior and deriding you for being too sensitive.
"I personally enjoy novels where people pine after each other helplessly for thirty years while refusing to give any hint of their interest [. . .] Similarly, you should strive to avoid falling in love with your family’s ancient enemy, trying to redeem war criminals with the power of love, getting unexpectedly pregnant by strange billionaires, or pretending to date someone for contrived bet or inheritance reasons."
concept: a dating app where you can only do one of the above.
This is amazing. It distills and expands upon every single detail about the book that creeped me out back when I read it, and which I yelled to my friends constantly about as it grew in popularity. Thank you for putting into a coherent argument something that I'd only be able to articulate in outbursts of annoyance whenever the book comes up.
"This is a real problem, I’ve seen it a lot, and if Conflict Is Not Abuse were actually about this I would love it and recommend it to all my friends."
If you wrote this book, I would totally buy it and recommend it to all *my* friends. :)
Amazing review, and thank you for making it so that I never have to suffer through it myself!
Amazing review! Also...
"To this very day I have people saying I married and had children with Scott Alexander, a guy I dated for a year and a half when I was 22."
Wouldn't have guessed that. Would _not_ have guessed that.
Ok but you put a lot of words in her mouth here, which is while considering the oddessy long quotes you’ve included. The book has issues, I don’t like her either tbh (as a writer, since I don’t know her). You say some inconsistent things here. You stand up for people with certain mental health conditions and then imply that people who push small boundaries always push big boundaries. That is some black and white thinking that leads to mentally ill people like me and you who have borderline being ostracized. I have never pushed a big boundary, I have lost the line of small ones during a bpd fueled episode. I have also since learned from that, realized how bad it is, and have changed as a person. I sent emails I shouldn’t, and I have also been terribly abused and never laid a hand on another. It’s really offensive honestly to imply that symptoms of a mental illness like having porous boundaries means you are an abuser. How can you be pissed at Sarah for saying the same thing you implied in different words? Yeah she definitely has a victim mindset. Sounds like you might too. There is a happy medium between this weird post and her weird book.
Having the privilege of being able to learn healthy boundaries doesn’t mean those who are displaying symptoms of their abuse who haven’t learned yet are evil people who will rape and abuse you. That’s absolutely insane to say. You have to have a piss poor understanding of abuse and trauma cycles to think that “good” people don’t have this symptom after they’ve been abused. If you’re a “good” victim, you just lay down and show your belly? Just skip the stages of grief like anger and denial? You think that every person who’s been traumatized will someday have the chance to address it? If someone literally abuses you, that’s a line in the sand for all of us and it cannot be crossed. If someone has symptoms of PTSD, BPD, you certainly don’t need us in your life if you can’t handle a friendship with someone. And if someone you love needs healing and won’t get it and you can’t be around that anymore, that’s obviously normal and fine. But to say that people displaying symptoms like a lack of communication boundaries are always going to sexually assault you is so insulting to those of us who are fighting through the stages of grief after being sexually assaulted, and we don’t always act pretty. I’m not mad at anyone for being mad at me for not getting help soon enough. Good people aren’t perfect because perfect people don’t exist.
>I agree all those sentences are individually true but collectively they sure look like a justification for hitting on people who do not want you to hit on them.
Should I interpret this as Ozy thinking that you need prior permission before hitting on someone? Wouldn’t asking “can I hit on you?” itself be hitting on them?
Her book on Israel/Palestine and the Queer International (while much better than CINA in every respect) has all the same problems. Pretentious writing, long pontificating digressions, creepy and racist anecdotes, delusions of grandeur, blatantly untrue statements (sometimes all of these issues manifesting in a single passage, the crown jewel being when she gets pissed at Omar Barghouti for having the audacity to suggest that antizionist Jews are less likely to be labeled antisemitic than antizionist gentiles...)...she is an unbelievably cringey writer/thinker and there's many obvious reasons why CINA didn't come out on an academic press.
Wow.
How does a book like that have so many fans?
I think, broadly, because people need some way to articulate the steelmanned version and grab onto the book because it serves as a magic totem that expresses that version for them by its sheer existence. Regardless of what's actually written on the pages.
I confess that I read the book and even tried to internalize its messaging a few years ago. While I think there are some ways that her ideas — at least the steel-manned interpretations — speak to varieties of moral courage, I agree that her overall takeaway is unworkable as a way of living.
A duty to repair broken relations sounds tempting, but experience has shown me that the healthier option is to break things off; leaving things with frayed ends.
I agree with something like 90%-99% of what you say and at the same time it makes me think of the loneliness and unhappiness epidemic in modern America and the lamenting for a village and community that so many people do. There really is a mental health crisis that I don’t see how can be explained by objective negatives of the world - I suspect it has to do with fewer human connections and we’ve voluntarily eliminated them in favor of no one having a right to our time or emotions. Which resonates for me individually but… I don’t think it’s possible to have strong communities without those annoying demands on our time and emotions. Because people are complex and weird and suck in some ways and people have conflict with each other. The individualism that we seek might be bad for us. Maybe our lives should involve making more time for other people. I don’t know, you mention you have good friends you don’t have time to keep up with but lots of people don’t have friends at all or very few and it’s devastating on their health and happiness. We can’t and shouldn’t force anyone to be friends but… something about the current situation isn’t working well.
I used to kind of think like this. It was rooted in attachment trauma and I was unconscious of the entitlement involved in demanding people tend to my emotional needs. I would guess that's there's some attachment stuff going on in the author that she's not aware of.
This was a lot of fun to read, however Im surprised that you are surprised. Schulmans attitude is really not that far away from things you see with lots of radicals. For example, the idea that you must be able to explain yourself ("be accountable") is widespread in these circles. And it makes sense, too: These communities are really against discrimination, and how are you going to stop people from discriminating if they can just say "Oh I dont want to associate with this person" without any reason? And something like your worry about people making false accusations of abuse does in fact happen; but usually people dont make up physical events and claim they happened. Instead, the other persons known behaviour (or, the refusal to adujst it) is analysed as abusive, or his ideological opinions are argued to be wrong and "literally killing people".
This need to resolve all conflict drives two prominent stereotypes about radicals, because theres two ways such a resolution can happen: either one side admits fault and promises to change ("struggle session") or they consider each other evil/enemies (schism). Against this background, Schulman is unusual mainly in being less willing to identify people as abusive/incorrigable, which is in line with the claimed thesis.
Your implication that this is all a smokescreen for her being pushy doesnt seem supported to me. Even if someone follows this apporach to conflict honestly and without bias in their own favour, there still will be cases where you dont convince them and they dont convince you, and they will be insistent in those cases. The existence of cases like that doesnt mean they were never open to having their mind changed and is the sort of person to rape people. Doesnt make the insistence less annoying when it happens though.
I think you were confused by the books message because you couldnt tell what was intended to be message and whats Schulmans background reality, and just interpreted all differences to yourself as message. That said, I dont know anything about the book besides your quotes - just, it seems quite clear to me whats being said, even with your attempt to show the mess.
She's adorable. I love this.
'Letting people schedule dates with you by harassing you' is the kind of thing you can write a good yuri novel about.
a long time ago I took CINA out of the library but didn't get around to reading it. I seem to have saved myself some time and headache.
> Me: well, I guess that I found it annoying when you said that my favorite painting is a piece of shit because a child could paint it.
> Them: Let us debate whether abstract art is real art! Once you realize that I’m right, you won’t be annoyed by my trenchant art criticism.
You know you're dealing with a sea lion when ... they say /that/ instead of good ol' escalating their original demeaning behavior and deriding you for being too sensitive.
Thank you for doing the work. I read a small part of the book, found I was getting upset, and bailed out on it without doing analysis.