Discussion The inherently (flawed) human urge to define evil

[NormallyNeurotic]

It feels more and more like people are regressing to their basest animal instincts nowadays. Nuance is a dying skill. We try to define those who abuse by their "disorder," those who are hateful by their "lack of intelligence," and all it's doing is feeding into exactly what those horrible people want—an excuse. For the focus to be taken away from the choices they make.

Society has such an obsession with defining and explaining why someone did something "evil" to the point that they make up false answers just to feel better. I saw multiple people claiming that Elon Musk is the way he is because his father allegedly sexually abused him and he never healed from it. But that's not how humans work.

Our nurture, current and past environment, all are secondary to our actions. They can guide and push us one way or another, but centering the possible "why" behind actions instead of the fact that the actions were done to begin with just gives these people an "out."

And even if part of them wants to change, they never will, because people focus more on their hypothetical permanent state of being rather the accountability they should be taking. This is an issue even in the psychological field.

The internet comes up with some sort of "epiphany" for why bad people are the way that they are every week or so. Elon was molested. Trump is a "narcissist." RFK Jr. is brain damaged. Neil Gaiman (and Elon, and any other autist who does bad things) are "good examples of what happens if you don't teach your autistic kids right." JK Rowling is "secretly a trans man," etc. All real things I've seen people say.

It's so demeaning to the marginalized people that these bastards hurt to boil them down to a label because you can't just admit that they choose to "be evil." They make that choice every day. No one forced their hand.

People need to stop trying to find a "why" and live in the present. We claim to be more intelligent than other animals, and yet we don't put the effort in to fight the base instinct of "identify/define danger." We want there to be a reason why people choose to be bad, because the reality is scarier—some people just choose to be that way. There isn't always a way to identify evil because evil doesn't exist. These people are humans.

 

[Hvergelmir]

The internet comes up with some sort of "epiphany"...

Without epiphany there's not much to say. The Internet is fighting for attention, trying to invent novel explanations and perspectives.
I don't think it's about good and evil, or psychology, but about literally everything.
It's often misleading garbage, indeed.

It feels more and more like people are regressing to their basest animal instincts nowadays. [...] People need to stop trying to find a "why" and live in the present.

This sounds a bit contradictory.
If we stop asking questions and trying to understand, in favor of acting on immediate observation and emotion; wouldn't that be a regression to the very animal instincts you criticize?

 

[Forever Sleep]

I partly agree in so much as it does annoy me too. The whole: People aren't truly responsible for their actions. I tend to agree that our choices are strongly influenced by our genes, upbringing, past experiences, current environment. Simply the fact though, that a violent criminal say isn't being violent the majority of the time means they can make decisions to control their urges. They also recognise them as something considered 'bad' that they could get in trouble for so I imagine- the majority of the time, there is full awareness and control.

When it comes to the understanding bit though- I'd say that is kind of necessary. You can decide that someone is behaving like they are because they might be a narcissist say. That doesn't mean you see them as any less dangerous or cruel necessarily. Whether they can (supposedly) help it or not- they present a threat.

It can also help in giving us early warnings- before the worst happens. Having experienced what I believe was natcissistic abuse- I'm extremely wary of red flags now. If people exhibit certain behaviours that are similar- I give them a wide berth. Or, I'm very much on my guard if I have to say- work with them. So- analysing and recognizing traits means we can be cautious around certain types of people.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

It can also help in giving us early warnings- before the worst happens. Having experienced what I believe was natcissistic abuse- I'm extremely wary of red flags now. If people exhibit certain behaviours that are similar- I give them a wide berth. Or, I'm very much on my guard if I have to say- work with them. So- analysing and recognizing traits means we can be cautious around certain types of people.

Analyzing traits is slightly different from the issue I have. I guess I should have specified. People should stop looking for a simplified "why."

Avoiding people with traits of those who do what people claim is "narcissistic abuse" works to keep you safe because "narcissistic abuse" is just a label created by a grifter and added to traits that all controlling abusers do.

From groomers to colonizers to misogynists, their actions fit the "narcissistic abuse criteria" because it is purposely broad in an attempt to do exactly what I criticize—give a label. Comfort our "monkey brain." Many people crave that comfort during hard times.

By avoiding those with traits of controlling abusers, you're not avoiding narcissists. If you met someone with NPD who never gave you the "ick" or the "red flags" that other supposed narcissists do, never even did anything but be kind, and you avoided them because you were convinced they'd abuse you, that is an example of what I am criticizing.

I know you said that you would likely avoid someone with NPD if you met them (I believe these were your words? The host was fronting at the time, feel free to correct), but you seem to be fully conscious of the fact that this is a trauma response, and that a personality disorder label does not assure abusive actions.

In that case, you are completely valid to associate with who you want, in the same way that many alters in this system tend to avoid cis men—but some people genuinely think that anyone with the label "narcissist" will abuse them, no question. That is base instinct, the need to label evil in simple terms.

Identifying danger is not the same as identifying dangerous patterns. Feeling "off" about someone is your survival instincts identifying toxic actions and the patterns that tend to lead to such. We do that too.

This sounds a bit contradictory.
If we stop asking questions and trying to understand, in favor of acting on immediate observation and emotion; wouldn't that be a regression to the very animal instincts you criticize?

Correct, thank you for pointing this out. See message above.