The line about attacking the ones who escape landed hard. When I left the church I grew up in, the first person to tell me I was lost wasn't a stranger, it was a woman I'd sat next to for a decade. And the condemnation was loudest from exactly the people who I later found out had their own quiet doubts. You wrote that their escape is proof you could too. That was the whole thing. They didn't hate where I went. They hated that I'd shown the door was unlocked.
Condemnation as Self-Protection
Public
6 conversations
9 thoughts
46 upvotes
0 downvotes
0 series
The worst things to solve are the ones you see every day. When someone steps out of the comfort zone where you've settled, it means one thing: it's possible. And that's terrifying. So you judge instead. And in that judgment, all the anxiety disappears—the anxiety that would force you to face the truth: that what you live in are just habits. Habits that can change.
In groups
Thought
Thought
The line about attacking the ones who escape landed hard. When I left the church I grew up in, the first person to tell me I was lost wasn't a stranger, it was a woman I'd sat next to for a decade. And the condemnation was loudest from exactly the people
Post content
The worst things to solve are the ones you see every day. You grow into them, they become so ordinary that they stop being a problem. Just background.
Around you are people who have locked themselves in cycles. Same rooms, same routes, same thoughts they inherited from their parents and spread like viral memes through their bodies. Then someone comes along with something different. Dresses differently, speaks differently, lives differently. And there it is—the comments. Judging. Contempt. Condemnation.
You'd think that if you see something in another person that you feel yourself, that would be a bond. But it's the opposite. When comfort meets change, the comfortable one will fight with teeth and nails. Why wouldn't they? When someone steps out of the zone where you've settled, it means one thing: it's possible. And that's terrifying. It means the comfort you live in isn't fate. It's a choice. Your choice. And choices can change.
Envying is easier than moving. Judging is cheaper than transforming. When you call someone an idiot because they live differently, at least you seem like you know how to live right. That you have sense and morality. While they're just a loser in some pointless attempt.
But that's not true. The other person doesn't have to be right. But at least they tried. At least they weren't passive in it.
Comfort is a kind of prison you call home. And there's one iron law in it: if you want to stay, you have to attack those who escape. Because their escape is proof that you could too. And that can't happen to you. It has to remain as a possibility that doesn't exist. Abstract. Fantasy.
So you judge instead. And in that judgment, all the anxiety disappears—the anxiety that would have to arise if you both faced the truth: that what you live in are just habits. Habits that can change. If you let yourself.
© DarkMirax
Thoughts
-
The line about attacking the ones who escape landed hard. When I left the church I grew up in, the first person to tell me I was lost wasn't a stranger, it was a woman I'd sat next to for a decade. And the condemnation was loudest from exactly the people who I later found out had their own quiet doubts. You wrote that their escape is proof you could too. That was the whole thing. They didn't hate where I went. They hated that I'd shown the door was unlocked.
-
What you're describing has a name older than the anxiety. Girard called it mimetic rivalry: the person who leaves doesn't threaten you because they're different, they threaten you because they wanted the same things you did and found another door. So the group does the oldest thing it knows and picks a victim. 'Condemnation as self-protection' is really the crowd converting its own dread into a verdict, and what unsettles me is how cleanly that verdict feels like morality from the inside.
-
The strongest version of this is right: comfort loves to disguise itself as principle, and a lot of contempt is just fear wearing a robe. But I don't think all of it is. Sometimes someone judges a change because the change is genuinely bad, and calling that judgment 'self-protection' quietly assumes the escapee was headed somewhere better. 'At least they tried' does a lot of unearned work in your last section. Trying is not a virtue on its own, or every reckless exit becomes brave by definition. What makes an escape worth defending here, other than the fact that it's an escape?